M  HN  AK  Y 

!   HI 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


<  .  I  1-    I     <  ) 


\l 

99685       Cla*s 


sPH 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  ROMANCE  OF  THE  SEVEN  SAGES 

WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE  MIDDLE 

ENGLISH  VERSIONS 


A   DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

OF  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS   UNIVERSITY  FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR    OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 

KILLIS    CAMPBELL 

FORMERLY  FELLOW  IN  ENGLISH  AT  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 


IVE 


BALTIMORE 

THE  MODERN  LANGUAGE  ASSOCIATION  OF  AMERICA 
1898 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  ROMANCE  OF  THE  SEVEN  SAGES 

WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE  MIDDLE 

ENGLISH  VERSIONS 


A  DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

OF  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS   UNIVERSITY  FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR    OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 

KILLIS    CAMPBELL 

FORMERLY  FELLOW  IN  ENGLISH  AT  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 


BALTIMORE 

THE  MODERN  LANGUAGE  ASSOCIATION  OF  AMERICA 
1898 


JOHN  MURPHY  A  CO.,   PRINTERS, 
BALTIMORE. 


f 


[Reprinted  from  the  Publication*  of  the  Modern  Language  Association 
of  America,  Vol.  XIV,  No.  1.] 


U* 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

A  Word  of  Introduction, 1 

I.    The  Earlier  History  of  the  Romance, 3 

I  (a).    The  Romance  in  the  Orient, 3 

I  (6).     Transmission  of  the  Romance  to  the  Occident,   -        -  12 

I  (c).     The  Romance  in  France  and  Italy,  20 

1.  The  Dolopathos, 21 

2.  The  Sept  Sages  de  Rome, 24 

n.    The  Romance  in  England, 35 

II  (a).    The  Middle  English  Versions, 37 

1.  Description  of  the  Manuscripts,  37 

2.  Interrelation  of  the  Middle  English  Versions,  43 

3.  Authorship  of  the  Middle  English  Versions,      -  84 

4.  Source  of  the  Middle  English  Versions,  87 
II  (6).     Sixteenth  Century  and  Chap-book  Versions,      -        -  91 

Appendix, 94 


99685 


A  STUDY  OF  THE   ROMANCE  OF  THE   SEVEN 

SAGES  WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO 

THE  MIDDLE  ENGLISH  VERSIONS. 

A  WORD  OF  INTRODUCTION. 

The  main  object  of  this  study  has  been  to  investigate 
thoroughly  the  relations  of  the  Middle  English  versions  of 
the  Seven  Sages  of  Rome. 

As  preliminary  to  this  investigation,  a  review  of  the  history 
of  the  romance  in  the  several  stages  through  which  it  has 
passed  before  reaching  English  has  been  made.  This  survey, 
a  recapitulation  of  the  results  which  modern  scholarship  has 
attained  in  the  study  of  the  romance,  has  been  made  im- 
partially, and  with  a  view  to  set  forth  the  most  approved 
views  that  have  been  held  rather  than  to  advance  any  new 
theories  of  my  own.  Where  these  views  are  conflicting,  as  is 
particularly  the  case  with  respect  to  the  eastern  versions,  I 
have  endeavored  to  sift  truth  from  error,  though  here 
naturally  some  difficulty  has  been  encountered.  It  is  only 
on  the  question  of  transmission  of  the  romance  that  a  view 
differing  from  that  of  the  best  authorities  has  been  taken. 

The  chapter  on  the  French  and  the  Italian  versions  has  been 
based  in  large  part  on  the  work  of  Gaston  Paris,  whose  Deux 

I 


2  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

Redactions  has  superseded  all  previous  contributions,  repre- 
senting as  it  does  the  most  recent  and  the  best  results  that  have 
been  attained  in  this  branch  of  the  study  of  the  romance. 
Additions  which  have  been  made  consist  largely  in  informa- 
tion as  to  a  number  of  manuscripts  which  were  unknown  to 
Paris,  or  which  have  since  been  found. 

The  second  and  major  part  of  the  study  has  been  devoted 
to  the  Seven  Sages  in  English.  Here  I  have  been  preceded 
by  Petras  and  Buchner,  the  one  dealing  mainly  with  the 
Middle  English  group,  the  other  especially  with  the  relations 
of  the  Wynkyn  de  Worde  and  Holland  versions.  The 
dissertations  of  these  two  scholars  are  the  only  real  contri- 
butions which  have  been  made  to  the  study  of  the  English 
versions.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  many  of  the 
current  theories  with  regard  to  these  versions  are  shown  on 
closer  examination  to  be  erroneous.  The  most  far-reaching 
of  these  misconceptions  is,  I  believe,  that  which  regards  the 
Wright  version  as  independent  of  all  other  English  versions. 
My  investigations  lead  me  to  the  conviction  that  at  least  seven 
of  the  eight  Middle  English  manuscripts  are  related  to  each 
other  through  a  common  Middle  English  original. 

I  regret  that  I  have  been  forced  to  forego  consideration  of 
one  of  the  Middle  English  versions, — the  Asloan.  I  was 
denied  access  to  this  manuscript  by  its  owner,  Lord  Talbot 
de  Malahide,  and  learned  of  the  existence  of  a  transcript  of  it 
in  the  University  Library  at  Edinburgh  when  it  was  too  late 
to  avail  myself  of  it.  Prof.  Varnhagen  believes  it  to  have 
had  an  immediate  basis  on  some  Old  French  manuscript; 
there  are  reasonable  grounds  for  doubting  this  belief,  however, 
and  I  am  unwilling  to  subscribe  to  it  until  a  further  comparison 
with  the  remaining  Middle  English  versions  has  been  made. 

This  study  leaves  undone  the  most  interesting,  if  not  the 
most  valuable  part  of  the  work  I  had  planned, — a  comparative 
study  of  the  stories  themselves ;  for  not  even  the  stories  of 
the  Bidpai  collection  have  enjoyed  a  wider  vogue  than  those 
of  the  Seven  Sages.  The  task  of  tracing  these  in  their  travels 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  3 

and  of  collecting  their  analogues  will  be  attempted  in  a  future 
publication,  when  it  is  hoped  that  an  edition  of  one  or  more 
of  the  unpublished  Middle  English  manuscripts  may  also  be 
attempted. 

I.  THE  EARLIER  HISTORY  OF  THE  ROMANCE. 
I  (a).   The  Romance  in  the  Orient. 

It  is  universally  held  to-day  that  the  great  collection  of 
popular  stories  known  in  the  West  as  the  Seven  Sages  of  Rome, 
in  the  East  as  the  Book  of  Sindibdd,  is  of  Indian  origin. 
This  was  well  established  by  Deslongchamps  already  in  1 838, 
in  his  Essai  sur  les  Fables  Indiennes,1  and  has  never  since  been 
seriously  brought  in  question.  The  Indian  original,  however, 
has  not  yet  been  discovered,  nor  is  it  probable  that  it  ever  will 
be;  and  it  even  admits  of  very  considerable  doubt  whether 
the  romance  ever  existed  in  India  in  a  form  very  near  to  that 
in  which  it  is  first  found. 

All  attempts,  too,  to  show  a  kinship  between  the  romance 
and  some  surviving  Sanskrit  story  have  proved  in  large  part 
futile.  Benfey  first  pointed  out  the  analogy  between  the 
introduction  to  the  Pantchatantra  and  the  framework  of 
the  Sindibdd,2  but  he  very  justly  concluded  that  the  Pantcha- 
tantra was  indebted  to  the  Sindibdd  rather  than  the  Sindibdd 
to  the  Pantchatantra.  In  a  later  publication,3  he  called  atten- 
tion to  the  similarity  between  the  Sindibdd  and  the  legend 
of  Kunala  and  Asoka,  and  Cassel  has  boldly  assumed  this 
legend  to  be  the  ultimate  basis  of  the  romance.4 

The  story  of  Kunala  is  widely  known  in  Sanskrit  litera- 
ture. Asoka,  a  famous  Indian  king,  had,  after  the  death  of 
his  first  wife,  married  one  of  the  latter's  attendants.  The 

1  Published  at  Paris,  1838,  in  conjunction  with  Leroux  de  Lincy's  edi- 
tion of  the  Sept  Sages  de  Rome. 

2  Pantchatantra,  Leipzig,  1859,  I,  \  8 ;  also  Melanges  Asiat.,  Ill,  p.  188  f. 

3  Orient  and  Occident,  in,  p.  177  f. 
'Mischle  Sindbad,  Berlin,  1888,  pp.  10f.,  62. 


4  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

new  queen  had  been  rejected  previous  to  this  by  Kunala, 
the  son  of  Asoka  by  another  wife,  and  bore  in  consequence  the 
greatest  hatred  toward  him.  The  prince  is  sent  by  Asoka  to 
one  of  the  provinces  to  put  down  a  rebellion,  where  he  wins 
great  distinction  for  himself.  In  the  meantime  the  king  is 
stricken  with  a  fatal  disease,  and  determines  to  recall  the 
young  prince  and  place  him  on  the  throne.  The  queen, 
realizing  what  this  would  mean  to  her,  offers  to  cure  the  king 
provided  he  grant  her  one  favor.  Having  been  restored  to 
health  through  her  agency,  the  king  agrees  to  grant  her  what- 
ever she  may  desire.  She  asks  to  be  permitted  to  exercise 
supreme  authority  for  seven  days,  during  which  time,  at  her 
instigation,  the  prince's  beautiful  eyes l  are  put  out.  Kunala 
subsequently  presents  himself  before  his  father  in  the  guise 
of  a  lute-player,  and  is  recognized.  The  queen  is  burned  in 
expiation  of  her  crime.2 

Such  in  brief  outline  is  the  legend,  which,  if  it  is  indeed 
the  ultimate  origin  of  the  Sindibdd,  at  least  does  not  suggest 
an  obvious  relation  to  it. 

Abundant  proof  of  a  Sanskrit  origin  of  the  Sindibdd,  how- 
ever, is  had  in  the  nature  or  content  of  its  stories  and,  in 
particular,  of  its  framework,  which  is  distinctly  Buddhistic. 
Cassel  has  treated  this  aspect  of  the  problem  at  great  length.3 
He  would  concede  as  the  result  of  his  investigations  that  some 
of  the  many  varying  stories  were  not  found  in  the  hypotheti- 
cal original,  and  that  no  one  of  the  extant  versions  faithfully 
represents  this  original.  Nor  is  it  strange  that  this  should  be 
the  case,  for  it  would  be  a  very  miracle  had  the  collection 
remained  intact  throughout  a  possible  half-dozen  redactions. 
It  is,  accordingly,  impossible  to  determine  which  of  the  stories 
were  in  the  original,  or  which  not;  this,  for  the  present  at 
least,  must  remain  largely  a  matter  of  conjecture.  Still,  this 

lCf.Mi*chleSindbad,p.  10. 

2  For  further  details  of  this  legend,  see  Burnouf,  Introduction  d  Fhistoire 
du  Buddhisme  indien,  Paris,  1844,  pp.  144  f.,  406. 
'  Mischle  Sindbad,  p.  82  f. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  5 

much  may  be  accepted  as  established,  that  some  of  the  original 
stories,  the  ethical  purpose,  and  many  of  the  general  charac- 
teristics of  the  Indian  prototype  have  been  preserved. 

The  Eastern  group  comprises  a  Hebrew,  a  Syriac,  a  Greek, 
an  Old  Spanish,  two  closely  related  and  a  third  somewhat 
anomalous  Persian,  and  three  cognate  Arabic  versions.  All 
these  differ  more  or  less  from  each  other,  but,  as  compared 
with  the  Western  group,  with  which  they  have  in  common 
only  four  stories  and  the  framework,  they  distinctly  stand 
apart  and  make  up  a  separate  group.  There  are  many 
important  details  in  which  the  two  groups  differ,  but  the 
most  marked  features  which  characterize  the  Eastern  group 
are,  first,  that  each  sage  tells  two  tales  as  against  one  each  in 
the  western  versions1 — a  feature  which  was  probably  not 
in  the  Sanskrit  original;  and,  secondly,  in  contradistinction  to 
the  entire  western  group  with  the  exception  of  the  Dolopathos, 
that  the  prince  has  only  one  instructor,  the  philosopher  Siudi- 
bad.  This  illustrious  teacher  is  the  central  figure  of  all 
versions  in  the  East,  where  by  general  consent  the  romance 
is  called  after  him  the  Book  of  Sindibdd.2 

The  origin  of  the  name  Sindibdd  is  in  dispute.  Benfey 
traces  it  back  to  *Siddhapatl,3  Teza  to  *Siddhapala ; 4  Cassel, 
on  the  contrary,  holds  that  the  word  was  coined  first  after 
leaving  India,  and  is  neither  Siddhapatl  nor  Siddhapala,  but 
*Sindubadhjdja  =  Indian  teacher.5 

The  name  of  the  prince  has  not  been  preserved,  but  the 
king  is  named  in  each  one  of  the  representative  eastern  texts. 
In  the  Syriac  and  the  Greek  he  is  called  Kurus;  in  the  Old 

1  This  is  the  case  in  all  eastern  versions  save  the  Seven  Vezirs  and  the 
version  of  Nachshebi :  in  the  former  some  sages  tell  one,  some  two  stories ; 
in  the  latter  each  sage  tells  only  one. 

2  Prof.  Rhys  Davids  in  his  work  on  the  Jdtakas  ( Buddhist  Birth  Stories, 
Boston,  1880,  vol.  i,  pp.  XLI,  xciv)  seems  to  have  confounded  this  romance 
with  the  story  of  Sinbad  the  Sailor  of  the  Arabian  Nights.     The  two  are  in 
no  way  related. 

3 Pantchatantra,  i,  §  5  (p.  23). 

4 11  Libra  dei  Selte  Savj,  ed.  D'Ancona,  Pisa,  1864,  p.  XLVH. 

6  Mischle  Sindbad,  p.  66. 


6  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

Spanish,  Alcos,  which  may  be  considered  a  variant  of  Kurus 
(Al-Curus),  since  the  Spanish  holds  very  closely  with  the 
Greek  and  Syriac,  and  goes  back  to  the  same  original.  The 
Hebrew  version,  on  the  other  hand,  calls  the  king  Pai  Pur, 
or,  as  Ben  fey  has  suggested,  Kai  (king)  Pur,  and  Cassel 
would  identify  this  Pur  with  the  Indian  king  Porus,  ruler 
of  India  at  the  time  of  the  Alexandrian  invasion,  and  third 
before  King  Asoka  of  the  Kunala  story.  Porus,  Cassel 
maintains,  is  a  substitution  for  .the  less  famous  Asoka  of  the 
original — a  transference  of  the  Asoka  tradition  to  Porus.1 
The  Kurus  of  the  Greek  and  Syriac  he  would  explain  in  like 
manner  as  a  similar  transference,  after  leaving  India,  from 
Porus,  or  Asoka,  to  the  far-famed  Cyrus  of  the  Persians.2 

The  route  of  transmission  from  India  westward  is  very 
generally  assumed  to  have  been  through  Pahlavi  into  Arabic.3 
There  seems  to  be  little  evidence,  however,  of  the  existence  of 
a  Pahlavi  version,  unless  the  current  tradition  to  that  effect, 
or  the  fact  that  the  Kalila  wa  Dimna  had  such  an  inter- 
mediate stage,  be  regarded  as  such.  Hence  Cassel  takes  a 
radically  different  view  from  that  generally  held,  maintaining 
that  the  lost  Arabic  text  goes  back  not  to  a  Pahlavi  but  to 
a  Syriac  version,  which,  in  its  turn,  goes  back  to  the  San- 
skrit,— the  collection,  then,  having  been  transmitted  westward 
through  the  agency  of  the  Manicheans  in  the  third  or  fourth 
century  of  our  era.4  The  Hebrew  and  the  lost  Arabic  versions 
he  conceives  to  be  coordinate  redactions  of  this  early  Syriac 
version,  finding  support  of  this  theory,  so  far  as  it  concerns 
the  Hebrew  text,  in  the  Syriac  influence  which  the  language 
of  the  latter  exhibits.  At  the  same  time,  although  he  thus 
claims  for  the  Hebrew  version  the  greatest  antiquity  of  any 
text  which  lias  been  preserved,  Cassel  admits  that,  in  addition 
to  the  Syriac  influence,  the  Hebrew  text  also  contains  traces 
of  a  Greek  influence  (as,  for  instance,  in  the  names  of  the 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  63,  2 1  'J.  « Ibid.,  p.  6 1. 

*  So  Comparetti,  Noldeke,  Clouston,  and  others. 
4Mutchle  Sindbad,  pp.  61,  310. 


THE   SEVEN   SAGES.  7 

sages),1  which  is  of  itself  sufficiently  indicative  of  the  lack  of 
conclusive  proof  of  his  thesis.2 

The  Arabic  text,  unlike  the  early  Syriac,  is  in  no  way 
hypothetical,  but  the  evidence  that  it  once  existed,  even  as 
late  as  the  thirteenth  century,3  is  conclusive.  Its  influence 
has  been  very  wide,  and,  until  Cassel,  it  has  been  generally 
assumed  to  be  the  source,  either  mediate  or  immediate,  of  the 
entire  Eastern  group.  The  Syriac  Sindban  and  the  Old 
Spanish  version  are  believed  to  be  its  closest  representatives. 
Its  author,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  introduction  to 
the  Syntipas,  was  a  certain  Musa,  and  its  date  has  been  con- 
jectu  rally  placed  by  Noldeke4  and  others  in  the  eighth  century. 

Only  ten  versions  belonging  to  the  Eastern  type  have  sur- 
vived. These  are  the  Hebrew  Mischle  Sindbad,  the  Syriac 
Sindban,  the  Greek  Syntipas,  the  Persian  Sindibdd-ndmeh  and 
its  source,  the  text  of  As-Samarquandi,  the  Old  Spanish  Libro 
de  los  Engannos,  the  three  Arabic  versions  of  the  Seven  Vezirs, 
and  the  eighth  night  of  the  Tuti-ndmeh  of  Nachshebi.5 

The  relative  age  of  these  is  not  definitely  known.  Early 
scholars  as  a  rule  held  that  the  Hebrew  version  antedated  all 
others ;  but  this  view  was  summarily  rejected  by  Comparetti 6 
and  his  followers,  who  claimed  greatest  antiquity  for  the 
Syntipas,  a  distinction  of  which  it  was  robbed  by  Rodiger's 
discovery  of  the  Syriac  version.  The  Nachshebi  version  has 
also  been  held  to  be  the  oldest,7  and  Clouston  in  recent  years 

1  These  are,  according  to  Cassel  (p.  219  f.),  Sindibad,  Hippocrates,  Apu- 
leius,  Lucian,  Aristotle,  Pindar,  and  Homer. 

"Mischle  Sindbad,  pp.  222,  310. 

3  The  Old  Spanish  version  was  made  from  it  in  1253. 

*  In  his  review  of  Baethgen's  edition  of  the  Sindban  in  Zeitschrift  d.  d. 
Mory.  Gesellschaft,  xxxui,  p.  518. 

5A11  these,  with  the  exception  of  the  text  of  As-Samarquandi,  have  been 
rendered  accessible  either  in  the  original  or  in  translations,  and  in  most 
cases  in  both. 

6  Comparetti,  Book  of  Sindibad,  p.  53  f.    Citation  is  made  from  the  English 
translation  by  Coote,  for  the  Folk  Lore  Socy.,  London,  1882.     The  original 
Ricerche  appeared  at  Milan  in  1869. 

7  Brockhaus  for  example. 


8  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

has  contended  for  the  Sindibad-ndmeh  as  representing  most 
closely  the  hypothetical  original.1  The  result  of  the  latest 
investigation,  as  has  been  seen,  is  to  return  to  the  view  of 
early  scholars,  which  gives  to  the  Hebrew  text  first  place  both 
as  regards  date  and  fidelity  to  the  lost  original.  Such  is 
CassePs  conclusion,  which,  although  somewhat  revolutionary, 
is  arrived  at  by  argument  which  at  least  serves  to  invalidate 
Comparetti's  assumption  that  the  Hebrew  text  stands  for  a 
late  and  very  free  version  of  the  romance.  It  is  hardly  legiti- 
mate to  conclude,  from  the  circumstance  that  the  Misclde 
Sindbad  stands  apart  from  the  remaining  members  of  the 
Eastern  group,  that  it  is,  on  that  account,  less  faithful  to 
the  original  tradition.  Nor  is  Comparetti's  argument  for  the 
identification  of  the  Joel  to  whom  the  work  is  attributed  by 
Rossi  and  the  British  Museum  manuscript,  with  the  Joel 
who  is  reported  to  have  translated  the  Kalila  wa  Dirnna  into 
Hebrew,  and  the  consequent  establishment  of  a  thirteenth 
century  date  for  this  version,  any  more  valid.2  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  Cassel  has  attained  no  definite 
results  as  to  chronology.3 

The  Mischle  Sindbad*  contains  twenty  stories,  three  of 
which,  Absalom,  The  Disguised  Youth,  and  The  Humpbacks 
(amatores),  appear  in  no  other  version  of  the  Eastern  group. 
Its  first  three  stories  come  in  the  same  order  as  in  the  Syriac, 
Greek,  and  Old  Spanish  versions.  Other  agreements  which 
are  evident  on  reference  to  a  comparative  table  serve  appar- 
ently to  hold  these  four  texts  together;5  this,  however,  is 
probably  rather  due  to  a  more  faithful  preservation  of  the 

1  (  louston,  Book  of  Sindibdd  [Glasgow],  1884,  p.  L  f. 

*  Comparetti,  Book  of  XiiM<l<lt  p.  53  f.  *  Mischle  Sindbad,  p.  310. 

4 The  Hebrew  text  has  undergone  the  following  editions:  •Sengelman 
(with  (ierman  translation),  Halle,  1842;  Carnioly  (with  French  transla- 
tion), Paris,  1849;  and  Cassel  (German  translation  and  copious  notes), 
Berlin,  1888. 

6  For  the  most  complete  comparative  table,  see  Landau,  Quellen  des  Deka- 
meron,  2d  ed.,  Stuttgart,  1884;  see  also  Cassel,  p.  362  f.,  and  Comparetti, 
p.  25. 


THE   SEVEN   SAGES. 

ultimate  original  on  the  part  of  these  than  to  any  very  close 
relationship  with  the  Hebrew,  and  comparison  will  show  not 
only  that  these  three  have  much  in  common  which  does 
not  appear  in  the  Hebrew,  but  also  that  the  latter  has  many 
features  (the  naming  of  the  sages,  for  example)  which  are 
peculiarly  its  own.  Additional  importance  attaches  to  the 
Hebrew  text  from  the  fact  that  it  probably  bears  a  closer 
relation  to  the  Western  group  than  any  other  known  eastern 
version.1 

The  Syriac  Sindban  was  discovered  by  Rodiger  in  1866, 
and  was  published  with  a  German  translation  by  Baethgen  in 
1879.2  The  text  is  unfortunately  fragmentary,  especially  at 
the  end.  Although  at  first  doubted  by  Comparetti,  it  has 
been  satisfactorily  shown  by  Noldeke  to  be  the  Syriac  basis 
of  the  Syntipas,  alluded  to  in  the  prologue  of  the  latter.3  The 
immediate  original  of  the  Sindban  must  then  be  the  last 
Arabic  text  of  Musa.  Noldeke  believes  it  to  belong  to  the 
tenth  century. 

The  Greek  Syntipas  is,  in  interest  and  importance,  second 
only  to  the  Hebrew  text.  As  compared  with  its  Syriac  origi- 
nal, it  is  much  more  full  and  ornate, — an  almost  unfailing 
characteristic  of  a  later  text.  Its  author  was,  as  the  prologue 
establishes,  a  certain  Michael  Andreopulos  and  the  translation 
was  made  at  the  command  of  one  Gabriel  //.eXowiy-to?.  Com- 
paretti would  identify  this  Gabriel  with  Duke  Gabriel  of 
Melitene,  and  thus  establish  the  date  of  the  work  as  the 
second  half  of  the  eleventh  century ; 4  but  this,  while  a  gain 
in  a  measure,  is  little  more  than  a  happy  suggestion.  Far 
less  probability  has  Cassel's  proposition  that  the  reference  is 
to  the  angel  Gabriel.6  The  text  was  first  published  by 

1  See  the  next  chapter  on  "  The  Transmission  of  the  .Romance  to  the 
Occident." 

8  Baethgen,  Sindban,  oder  die  Sieben  Weisen  Meister,  Leipzig,  1879.  An 
English  translation  by  H.  Gollancz  appeared  in  Folk  Lore,  vin,  p.  99  f., 
June,  1897. 

3Zeitschr.  d.  d.  Morg.  Gesellschaft,  xxxin,  p.  513  f. 

4  Book  of  Sindibdd,  p.  57.  » Mischle  Sindbad,  p.  368. 


10  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

Boissonade,  and  has  been  lately  critically  edited  by  Eberhard.1 
A  modern  Greek  adaptation  of  the  older  text  is  of  little  value 
in  a  comparative  study  of  the  romance.2 

The  Libro  de  los  Ifagannos,  like  the  Syriac  text,  was  not 
known  until  late  in  the  century.  It  is,  according  to  its  pro- 
logue, a  translation  from  the  Arabic,  made  in  the  year  1253. 
The  text  is  complete,  but  very  corrupt.  Its  closest  affinities 
are  with  the  Greek  and  Syriac  versions,  with  both  of  which  it 
exhibits  intimate  agreement  in  content  and  order  of  stories.  It 
seems  to  have  had  no  influence  at  all  on  modern  Spanish  litera- 
ture. The  first  edition  of  the  text  appeared  in  Comparetti's 
Ricerchejin  1869;  a  second  edition,  with  an  admirable  Eng- 
lish translation  appended,  appeared  in  the  English  edition  of 
this  book  in  1882.3 

The  Persian  Sindibad-ndmeh4'  dates  from  the  year  1375. 
It  purports  to  be  based  on  a  Persian  prose  text  which  goes 
back  to  the  Arabic.  Clouston  first  suggested  that  this  origi- 
nal was  the  text  of  As-Samarquandl,  which  was  known  in  the 
early  part  of  the  century,  but  which  had  subsequently  been 
lost  sight  of.  By  the  rediscovery  of  a  manuscript  of  this 
version  in  1891,  he  has  been  enabled  to  establish  this  conjec- 
ture as  a  fact.5  The  As-Samarquandi  text  agrees  closely  with 
the  Sindibdd-ndme/i  in  content,  the  only  important  difference 
being  the  substitution  on  the  part  of  the  latter  of  one  or  two 
extraneous  stories  for  those  it  found  in  its  original.  The 
agreement  in  order  of  stories  is  close  throughout.  The  date 
of  the  prose  text  falls  late  in  the  twelfth  century.  It  differs 
considerably  from  the  rest  of  the  Eastern  group,  but  is  nearer 

1  Eberhard,  Fabulae  Romanenses  Greece,  etc.,  I  (Teubner),  Leipzig,  1872. 

2  For  the  Syntipas  in  later  literature,  see  Murko,  "  Die  Geschichte  v.  d. 
Sieben  Weisen  b.  d.  Slaven,"  Wiener  Akad.  Sitzunysb.,  Ph.  Hist.  Cl.,  cxxil, 
No.  x,  p.  4  f. 

8  Book  ofSindibad,  pp.  73-164. 

4  This  text  has  not  yet  been  edited.  An  abstract  of  it  was  given  by 
Falconer  in  the  Asiatic  Journal,  xxxv,  p.  169  f.  and  xxxvi,  pp.  4  f.,  99  f. ; 
a  complete  translation  into  English  appears  in  Clouston's  Book  ofSindibad. 

5 Athenaeum  for  Si-pt.  Ill,  1891,  p.  355. 


THE   SEVEN  SAGES.  11 

to  the  Syriac,  Greek  and  Spanish  versions  than  to  the  Hebrew. 
There  appears  to  be  no  evidence  to  support  Clouston's  sugges- 
tion that  it  represents  the  Sanskrit  prototype  more  faithfully 
than  any  other  known  version;  neither  is  Modi's  contention 
for  a  close  relation  with  the  story  of  Kaus,  Sonddbeh,  and 
Sidvash1  by  any  means  convincing;  but  the  tradition  which 
makes  its  origin  in  the  Arabic  text  is  doubtless  well  founded. 

Under  the  head  of  the  Seven  Vezirs  fall  three  versions  which 
have  been  introduced  into  the  frame  of  the  Arabian  Nights. 
These  are  the  texts  of  Habicht  and  Scott,  and  the  Boulaq 
edition.2  They  are  of  late  composition,  and  of  comparatively 
slight  value  for  the  present  purpose. 

The  text  contained  in  the  eighth  night  of  Nachshebi3  is 
one  of  the  most  interesting  of  the  Eastern  group,  and  has 
given  rise  to  much  speculation.  It  differs  considerably  from 
all  other  related  versions,  having  but  six  stories,  only  five 
of  which  appear  elsewhere  in  the  Eastern  group.  All  five  of 
these  in  the  fuller  versions  are  second  vezir's  tales,  and  as 
they  were  also  found  originally  in  the  Sukasaptatl  (though 
not  connected  as  with  Nachshebi),  it  has  been  conjectured  by 
Comparetti  that  they  were  first  introduced  into  the  Sindibdd 
after  leaving  India,  and  that  Nachshebi,  observing  this,  again 
inserted  them  in  his  free  translation  of  the  Tutl-ndmeh,  and 
practically  in  the  same  form  in  which  he  found  them  in  the 
Sindibdd.*  Comparetti  would  further  identify  the  collection 
before  and  after  this  addition  with  the  ' Greater7  and  ' Lesser' 
Sindibdd  referred  to  by  the  tenth  century  Mohammed  Ibn  el 
"VVarrak.  A  radically  different  theory  has  been  advanced  by 
Noldeke,  who  maintains  that  the  '  Greater '  Sindibdd  has  been 
lost.5  As  for  the  version  of  the  Sindibdd  whence  Nachshebi 

1  Modi,  Dante  and  Viraf  and  Gardis  and  Kaus,  Bombay,  1892. 

2 1001  Nights,  Breslau,  1840,  xv,  pp.  102-172;  Scott,  Tales,  Anecdotes  and 
Letters,  Shrewsbury,  1800,  p.  38  f. ;  1001  Nights,  Boulaq,  1863,  in,  pp.  75-124. 

'Brockhaus,  Nachshebl's  S.  W.  M.,  Leipzig,  1845;  translated  by  Teza, 
D'Ancona  ed.  of  Sette  Savj.,  p.  xxxvn  f. 

'Book  ofSindibad,  p.  37  f. 

8  Zeitschr.  d.  d.  Morg.  Gesellschaft,  xxxin,  p.  521  f. 


12  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

drew,  both  Comparetti  and  Noldeke  concur  in  the  belief  that 
it  was  the  text  on  which  the  Sindibdd-ndmeh  was  based,  or 
that  of  As-Samarquandi.  The  date  of  the  Nachshebi  version 
is  late,  as  its  author  died  in  1329. 

Besides  the  ten  versions  catalogued  above,  the  existence  of 
certain  others  which  have  been  lost  is  proved  by  sundry  refer- 
ences from  oriental  writers.  A  Persian  text  is  attributed  to 
Azraki  by  Daulat  Shah,  and  there  are  several  references  from 
the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries  to  works  which  do  not  seem  to 
be  identical  with  anything  which  has  been  preserved.  The 
best-known  of  these,  probably,  is  Masudi's  (943)  statement 
that  in  the  reign  of  Kurush  "  lived  es-Sondbad,  who  is  the 
author  of  the  book  of  the  seven  vezirs,  the  teacher  and  boy, 
and  the  wife  of  the  king.  This  is  the  book  which  bears  the 
name  Kitab-es-Sindbad."  1  A  still  earlier  reference  is  that  of 
Al-Yaqubi  (880).  Both  of  these  may  refer  to  the  Arabic 
text  of  Musa,  though  this  is  by  no  means  certain.  Most 
perplexing  of  all  is  the  reference,  already  mentioned,  to  a 
'  Greater '  and  a  '  Lesser '  Book  of  Sindibdd. 

Doubtless  many  more  versions  have  been  lost  than  this 
would  indicate ;  but  since  nearly  a  third  of  the  known  texts 
have  been  revealed  only  within  the  last  generation,  it  may  be 
hoped  that  the  near  future  has  in  store  many  revelations 
which  will  materially  serve  to  dispel  the  mist  which  now 
surrounds  almost  the  entire  question  of  relations  in  the  East. 

I  (b).   Transmission  of  the  Romance  to  the  Occident. 

The  Greek  Syntipas  and  the  Old  Spanish  Libro  de  los 
F.iKjtinno*  are  the  only  representatives  of  the  Eastern  group 
which  have  arisen  on  European  territory.  Neither  one  of 
then-,  however,  can  he  considered  a  connecting  link  in  the 
chain  of  transmission;  nor  can,  in  fact,  with  nil  certainty, 
any  one  member  of  the  Eastern  group  claim  this  distinction. 

1  Masfull,  Meadows  of  Gold,  translated  by  Sprenger,  London,  1841,  p.  175. 
Alasudi  was  not  wi-11  acquainted  with  the  romance,  as  follows  from  the  fact 
that  he  attributes  its  authorship  to  Sindibiid. 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  13 

The  question  of  transmission  is,  and  must  doubtless  always 
remain,  very  much  shrouded  in  darkness.  The  two  groups, 
having  in  common  only  four  stories  and  the  framework,  and 
having  in  these,  also,  many  radical  differences,  cannot  be 
thought  of  as  connected  through  free  or  literal  translation, 
nor  by  intermediate  redactions;  the  only  valid  explanation 
of  the  enormous  gap  existing  between  them  must  repose  in 
the  assumption  of  a  basis  for  the  western  original  in  popular 
tradition.  This  alone  can  explain  the  difference  between  the 
two  groups. 

But  this  assumption  should  not  carry  with  it  (as  with 
Comparetti  apparently;  1.  c.,  p.  2)  the  further  assumption 
that,  since  the  medium  of  transmission  was  oral,  all  possi- 
bility of  ever  determining  the  specific  original  of  the  Western 
group  is  thereby  done  away  with.  This  need  not  follow  at 
all.  The  oral  tradition  on  which  the  western  parent  version 
had  its  basis,  must  itself  have  had  some  basis,  and  this  cannot 
have  been  the  entire  Eastern  group,  nor  with  any  degree  of 
probability  any  two  of  its  members ;  it  was  some  one  member 
of  the  Eastern  group.  Accordingly  it  is  legitimate  to  endeavor 
to  determine  which  one  of  the  Eastern  versions  is  the  origi- 
nal, or  the  closest  representative  of  the  original,  of  the  Western 
group. 

Modern  scholars  in  general  have  refrained  from  any  investi- 
gation of  this  stage  of  the  history  of  the  romance.  With  a 
single  exception,  the  only  judgments  upon  the  problem  date 
from  the  earlier  part  of  the  century.  Dacier,  Keller,  Deslong- 
champs,  Wright,  D'Ancona,  and  others  put  forth  claims  for  one 
or  another  of  the  Eastern  group  (some  for  the  Greek,  others 
for  the  Hebrew),  as  the  original  of  the  western  type.  But 
all  these  claims  were  unsustained  by  any  evidence  adduced, 
and  were  in  every  case  scarcely  more  than  conjectures.  The 
modern  scholar  who  alone  has  put  himself  on  record  here  is 
Landau ; l  and  he  is,  at  the  same  time  the  only  one  of  the 

1  Marcus  Landau,  Quellen  des  Dekameron,  2d  ed.,  Stuttgart,  1884. 


14  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

whole  number  who  has  made  a  serious  effort  to  sustain  his 
position.  At  the  basis  of  Landau's  work,  however,  lies  the 
assumption  that  the  Latin  prose  Historia  Septem  Sapientum 
(H)  is  the  parent  version  of  the  Western  group,  —  an  assump- 
tion which  is  entirely  gratuitous,  for  surely  Gaston  Paris  has 
succeeded  in  demonstrating  that  H  is  not  the  original  western 
text;  while  the  majority  of  Landau's  arguments  therefore  hold 
also  in  a  comparison  of  the  oldest  texts  with  the  Eastern 
group,  it  is  in  view  of  this  fundamental  misconception  on  his 
part  that  he  has  in  reality  proved  nothing  more  than  that  the 
fourteenth  century  Historia  is  nearer  the  Hebrew  than  to  any 
other  eastern  version. 

With  the  proof  of  the  unoriginality  of  H,  the  question 
as  to  the  nearness  of  the  various  sub-types  of  the  western 
group  to  the  parent  version  has  been  left  open.  The  oldest 
text  preserved  is  the  Dolopathos  ;  but  this  is  a  unique  version, 
and,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  next  chapter,  cannot  with  the 
slightest  probability  be  looked  upon  as  the  western  original, 
though  it  is  assuredly  connected  in  some  way  with  the  pre- 
vailing type  of  the  Western  group,  the  Seven  Sages  of  Rome. 
Next  to  the  Dolopathos  the  Scala  Coeli  (S)  and  Keller  (K) 
texts  have  been  treated  as  the  oldest  by  the  latest  and  best 
authorities  ;  to  these,  in  view  of  its  prime  importance  and  the 
uncertainty  as  to  its  relations,  we  should  like  to  add  the  type 
A*.1  No  proof  of  the  priority  of  any  one  of  these  has  yet  been 
brought  forward  ;  moreover,  the  earliest  dating  proposed  for 
any  of  them  is  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth  century.  We 
may  begin,  then,  with  the  assumption  that  the  immediate 
parent  version  of  the  Western  group  has  been  lost.  At  the 
same  time,  since  the  Dolopathos,  which  dates  from  the  last 
quarter  of  the  twelfth  century,  is  evidently  based  on  some 
version  of  the  prevailing  western  type,  we  may  assume  for 


Old  French  versions  A,  C,  D  of  Paris  (Deux  Redactions)  have  been 
"starred"  throughout  in  order  to  avoid  confusion  with  the  Middle  English 
(M.  E.)  versions  A,  C,  D. 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  15 

this  lost  original  a  date  not  later  than  the  middle  of  the 
twelfth  century. 

A  twelfth  century  original  having  been  assumed  for  the 
Western  irrotip,  the  Libra  de  los  Engannos  (xin  cent.),  the 
Sindibdd-nfijmeh  (xiv  cent.),  and  the  Seven  Vezirs  (very  late) 
may  be  eliminated  from  the  investigation  ;  likewise  the  unique 
text  of  Nachshebi  for  reasons  that  are  obvious.  There  remain 
the  Mischle  Sindbad,  the  Sindban,  and  the  Syntipas,  no  one 
of  which  can  be  dated  later  than  the  eleventh  century,  if 
we  accept  CassePs  view  as  to  the  comparative  antiquity  of 
the  Hebrew  text.  Further,  since  the  western  original  of  the 
Western  group  has  been  lost,  comparison  can  be  made  with 
the  latter  only  on  the  basis  of  the  constant  elements  appearing 
in  its  most  ancient  versions, — S,  K,  A.*  Accordingly,  the 
comparison  must  be  instituted  between  the  Hebrew,  Syriac, 
and  Greek  versions,  on  the  one  hand,  and  S,  K,  A*  on  the 
other. 

The  framework  of  the  romance  has  undergone  a  radical 
change  in  the  course  of  its  transmission  westward.  There  is 
no  longer  mention  of  a  philosopher  Sindibad,  but  the  seven 
sages  of  Rome  become  the  central  figures,  and  play  the  double 
r6le  of  instructors  and  defenders  of  the  prince.  Sundry  other 
characteristic  features  of  the  Eastern  group,  such  as  the  prince's 
early  stupidity,  the  multiplicity  of  the  king's  wives,  etc.,  have 
been  lost;  but  the  most  far-reaching  change  consists  in  the 
curtailment  of  stories,  each  sage  telling  only  one  story  in 
the  Western  group  as  against  the  prevailing  number  of  two 
in  the  Eastern. 

In  these  variations  the  Greek,  Hebrew,  and  Syriac  versions 
present  essential  agreement ;  but  there  are  several  features  in 
which  these  three  texts  do  not  agree,  and  it  is  significant  here 
that  where  the  Western  group  preserves  any  of  these  features, 
it  is  always  in  agreement  with  the  Hebrew,  and  in  no  single 
instance  with  the  Greek  or  the  Syriac. 


16  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

The  following  features  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew  text  as 
compared  with  the  rest  of  the  Eastern  group  reappear  in  the 
oldest  western  versions  : l 

(1).  The  seven  sages  are  not  referred  to  simply  as  such, 
but  are  mentioned  by  name2  (Landau,  p.  48). 

(2).  They  vie  in  their  efforts  to  secure  the  office  of  instructor 
of  the  prince 3  (Landau,  p.  48). 

(3).  These  sages,  and  not  the  vezirs  or  counsellors  of  the 
king  as  with  the  rest  of  the  Eastern  group,  relate  the  stories 
which  preserve  the  prince's  life 4  (Landau,  p.  48). 

The  mode  of  punishment  of  the  guilty  queen  offers  nothing 
determining.  The  eastern  texts  have  little  in  common  here 

}A\\  these  several  bits  of  argument  adduced  here  and  on  the  following 
pages,  with  the  exception  of  those  under  the  story  avis,  have  been  advanced 
by  Landau  (pp.  47-  50) ;  in  addition  to  these,  owing  to  his  false  hypothesis 
of  the  originality  of  H,  Landau  has  made  use  of  two  other  features  in  which 
H  agrees  with  the  Hebrew  text  versus  the  remainder  of  the  Eastern  group, 
but  which  must  be  cancelled,  since  they  are  also  peculiar  to  H.  These  are 
( 1 )  the  disguised-youth  incident  of  H,  which  Landau  (p.  48  f.)  inclines  to  trace 
back  to  the  seventeenth  story  of  the  Mischle  Sindbad,  and  (2)  amatores,  the 
twelfth  story  of  the  Historia,  which  is  ultimately  the  same  as  the  Hebrew 
story  of  the  Hunchbacks  (M.  S.  18;  see  B&lier,  Les  Fabliaux,  Paris,  1893,  p. 
201  f.).  Neither  of  these  appears  in  any  other  western  version,  whence 
the  only  legitimate  inference  that  they  were  not  in  the  lost  western  original, 
but  are  late  incorporations  on  the  part  of  jffinto  the  frame  of  the  collection. 

<2This,  a  characteristic  feature  of  the  Western  group,  appears  in  all 
western  texts  save  those  (as  S)  which  have  been  abridged.  The  names 
of  the  sages  in  the  Mischle  Sindbad  are  Sindibad,  Hippocrates,  Apuleius, 
Lucian,  Aristotle,  Pindar,  and  Homer  (Cassel,  p.  253) ;  in  the  Western 
group,  Bancillas,  Ancilles,  Malquidras,  Lentulus,  Caton,  Jesse,  and  Meros. 
For  variants  of  these,  see  Landau,  Quellen  den  Dekamerqn,  p.  60  n. 

sln  the  Hebrew  (see  Cassel,  p.  255  f.)  one  proposes  to  instruct  him  in 
five  years,  another  in  two  years,  a  third  in  one  year, — and  finally  Sindibfid 
offers  to  make  him  wisest  of  all  men  in  six  months.  The  term  of  years 
proposed  by  the  sages  in  the  western  versions  varies  from  seven  to  one. 

*Carmoly  (p.  Go)  states  expressly  that  these  were  the  king's  counsellors, 
and  not  the  sages,  who,  he  says,  were  now  in  hiding  to  avoid  the  king's 
anger;  but,  as  Landau  (p.  48)  points  out,  the  sage  Aristotle  is  referred  to 
by  name  at  the  end  of  the  third  story  as  having  saved  the  prince's  life  by 
his  stories  on  the  preceding  day  (Cassel,  p.  267);  accordingly,  although 
there  is  a  slight  confusion,  it  is  evident  that  Carmoly  is  in  error. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  17 

beyond  the  bare  outline.  In  the  Greek  and  As-Samarquandi 
texts,  the  woman  is  condemned  to  wander  through  the  streets 
on  an  ass,  with  her  head  shaved  and  her  face  soiled,  and  with 
two  criers  proclaiming  her  shame.  In  the  Hebrew  text,  she 
is,  at  the  prince's  request,  pardoned  unconditionally.  The 
Syriac  text  is  fragmentary  here.  Of  the  western  feature  of 
condemning  the  queen  to  die  the  death  prepared  for  the 
prince,  there  seems  to  be  no  hint  in  the  eastern  versions. 

A  comparison  of  the  four  stories  (cams,  aper,  avis,  and 
senescalcus)  common  to  the  two  main  groups  also  shows  many 
variations,  but  here,  too,  where  the  Mischle  Sindbad  differs 
from  the  Syntipas  and  other  versions  of  the  Eastern  group,  it 
will  be  seen  to  accord  in  several  particulars  with  the  Western 
group. 

(1).  Canis.  The  story  cams,  the  only  one  found  in  all 
versions  of  the  Seven  Sages,  both  eastern  and  western,  exhibits 
in  the  earliest  western  versions  no  noteworthy  variations  from 
the  prevailing  type  of  the  story  in  the  East.  In  the  Sindibdd- 
ndmeh  it  is  a  weasel  or  ichneumon  which  attacks  the  sleeping 
child  ;  in  all  other  versions  it  is  a  snake.  The  child  is  left  in 
charge  of  nurses  in  the  western  versions,  a  feature  entirely 
foreign  to  the  Eastern  group.  The  derivative  types,  Dolo- 
pathos  and  Historia,  introduce  a  bird  (Dolop.,  a  goshawk; 
Hj  a  falcon)  which  wakes  the  child  on  the  snake's  approach. 
This  and  several  other  additions,  especially  to  the  Dolopathos, 
are  not  found  in  the  types  S,  K,  and  A*,  a  circumstance  which 
well  warrants  the  inference  that  they  were  not  in  the  western 
parent  version. 

(2).  Aper.  This  story,  like  cam's,  has  been  subjected  to 
considerable  alteration  in  the  course  of  transmission, — e.  g.,  in 
the  East,  the  boar  comes  to  his  death  as  the  result  of  holding 
up  his  head  in  the  expectation  of  more  fruit  (the  sinews  drying 
up) ;  in  the  West,  he  is  slain  by  the  shepherd,  who,  descending 
the  tree  until  in  reach  of  him,  "  claws  "  him  on  the  back  until 
he  falls  asleep,  and  then  dispatches  him  with  his  knife.  But 
2 


18  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

the  special  value  in  the  collation  of  this  story  lies  in  the  fact 
that  the  Hebrew  text  coincides  with  the  Western  group  in 
having  a  man  chased  up  the  tree,  while  in  the  remaining  eastern 
versions  it  is  a  monkey  who  thus  flees  from  the  boar.  This 
coincidence,  first  noted  by  Deslongchamps  (/.  c.,  p.  110  n.), 
is  one  of  the  most  striking  agreements  of  the  Hebrew  text  with 
the  Western  group. 

(3).  Senescalcus.  A  comparison  of  the  various  versions  of 
senescalcus  reveals  no  eastern  motive  reproduced  in  the  West 
which  is  not  common  to  the  entire  Eastern  group.  The 
western  version  of  the  story  agrees  in  general  outline  with 
the  eastern,  but  is  distinguished  from  it  by  the  introduction 
of  even  more  objectionable  details  than  those  which  characterize 
its  oriental  original.  The  western  texts  vary  in  the  method 
of  punishing  the  seneschal :  in  S  he  is  hanged ;  in  K,  A*, 
and  the  prevailing  sub-groups,  he  is  banished  by  the  king  on 
pain  of  death  in  case  he  return.  In  the  East  the  bathman 
(=  seneschal)  dies  by  his  own  hand. 

(4).  Avis.  The  essential  features  of  this  famous  story  have 
been  preserved  remarkably  intact  thoughout  all  versions. 
There  are,  however,  two  features  which  occur  in  the  East 
only  in  the  Mischle  Sindbad  which  have  been  preserved  in 
the  western  texts.  These  are  (1)  that  the  wife  goes  on  the 
house-top  in  order  to  sprinkle  water  over  the  bird's  cage,  and 
(2)  that  she  is  aided  and  abetted  in  her  efforts  to  deceive  the 
bird  by  her  maid.  Of  the  first  of  these  we  have  in  no  other 
eastern  version  any  hint ;  likewise,  for  the  second,  there  is  no 
real  suggestion  in  any  of  the  Eastern  group  besides  the  Mischle 
Sindbadj  for,  although  there  is  mention  elsewhere  of  the  maid, 
it  is  only  as  having  been  suspected  of  informing  on  her  mis- 
tress, and  never  in  the  r6le  assigned  her  in  the  Hebrew  and 
the  western  versions.1 

1  The  arguments  made  by  Landau  under  avis  are  not  valid.  That  the 
bird  speaks  Hebrew  as  well  as  Latin,  is  not  true  of  any  of  the  oldest 
western  versions,  but  appears  to  be  peculiar  to  H;  while  the  argument 
from  the  killing  of  the  bird  in  H  and  the  Hebrew  text  is  altogether  in- 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  19 

To  recapitulate  then,  the  features  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew 
and  the  oldest  western  texts  are  as  follows  : 

(1).   The  seven  sages  are  mentioned  by  name. 

(2).  There  is  a  rivalry  between  the  sages  in  their  efforts  to 
secure  the  tutelage  of  the  prince. 

(3).   The  sages,  not  the  king's  counsellors,  defend  the  prince. 

(4).  In  oper,  the  adventure  happens  not  to  an  ape,  but  to  a 
man. 

(5).  In  avis,  (a)  the  deception  is  practised  on  the  bird 
through  an  opening  in  the  house-top,  and  (b)  the  maid  appears 
as  an  assistant  of  the  faithless  wife. 

A  comparison  with  the  Syntipas  fails  to  bring  out  any 
feature  exclusively  common  to  it  and  the  Western  group. 
The  same  holds  for  the  Syriac  and  later  versions.  The 
question  is  then  narrowed  down  to  the  significance  of  the 
agreements  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  western  texts.  Are 
they  only  accidental,  or  have  they  a  real  significance?  Cer- 
tainly they  do  not  prove  a  direct  relationship  between  the 
Hebrew  and  any  western  version,  as  Deslongchamps  and 
Landau  have  maintained ;  nor  are  they  sufficient  to  justify 
the  thought  of  a  connection  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  groups 
through  intermediate  literary  stages;  indeed,  they  yield  no 
conclusive  proof  of  anything  with  regard  to  the  problem  of 
relationship.  Nevertheless,  they  are  in  a  measure  significant ; 
though  some  of  them  are  in  all  probability  accidental,  yet  it 
does  not  seem  possible  that  all  of  them  can  be  mere  coinci- 
dences. They  justify,  at  least,  the  negative  conclusion  that 
neither  the  Syntipas  (nor  the  Sindban)  was  the  eastern  original 
whence  sprang  the  tradition  which  culminated  in  the  parent 
version  of  the  Western  group.  And  while  they  do  not  prove 
the  Hebrew  text  to  represent  this  eastern  original,  they 
do,  nevertheless,  establish  this  as  a  probability,  with  the 
only  other  alternative  in  the  supposition  that  the  eastern 
original  of  the  Western  group  has  been  lost. 

valid,  since  the  same  feature  is  found  in  all  eastern  versions  save  the 
Syntipas,  and  would  be  in  any  case  of  little  value  for  the  purpose  to  which 
Landau  would  put  it,  since  it  is  a  simple  and  natural  variation. 


20  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 


I  (c).    The  Romance  in  France  and  Italy. 

Between  the  eastern  and  western  types  of  the  Seven  Sages, 
as  has  been  seen,  there  is  a  very  wide  difference.  Four  of  the 
original  stories  and  the  main  outline  of  the  eastern  framework 
have  been  preserved  in  the  western  versions,  but,  as  Comparetti 
has  aptly  said,  "  there  is  no  eastern  version  which  differs  so 
much  from  the  others  as  the  whole  Western  group  differs  from 
the  Eastern,  whether  it  be  in  the  form  of  the  fundamental 
story  or  in  the  tales  which  are  inserted  in  it.7'  In  explanation 
of  this  wide  difference  a  basis  has  been  assumed  for  the  Western 
group  in  oral  accounts. 

Where  these  oral  accounts  first  took  literary  form  has  not 
been,  and  probably  never  will  be,  satisfactorily  determined. 
Some  have  maintained  an  origin  on  Latin  territory ;  but  the 
probabilities  favor  a  French  origin,  though  it  is  more  than 
possible  that  the  parent  version  was  written  in  the  Latin 
language. 

The  oldest  form,  apparently,  under  which  the  western  type 
has  come  down  to  us  is  the  Dolopathos.  There  can  be  little 
doubt,  however,  that  the  more  widely  known  Sept  Sages  de 
Rome,  of  which  there  survive  many  manuscripts  dating  from 
a  period  but  a  little  later  than  that  of  the  earliest  version  of 
the  Dolopathos,  preserves  more  nearly  the  form  and  contents 
of  the  western  parent  version.  And  it  is  under  this  form  that 
the  romance  has  acquired  its  marvellous  popularity  in  France, 
whence  it  has  penetrated  into  nearly  every  other  country  of 
Europe. 

With  regard  to  the  relationship  of  these  two  forms  or  groups 
under  which  the  romance  appears  in  the  West,  early  scholars 
were  very  much  in  error.  For  a  long  time  it  was  believed 
that  the  poetical  version  of  the  Dolopathos  found  its  source  in 
the  Latin  prose  Historia  Septem  Sapientum-,1  again,  it  was 
always  assumed  as  fundamental  that  the  Hisloria  antedated 

1The  most  widely  known  of  all  versions  of  our  romance;  see  below. 


THE   SEVEN  SAGES.  21 

and  was  the  ultimate  western  original  of  the  entire  Western 
group, — these  two  misconceptions  pervaded  the  entire  litera- 
ture on  the  romance  during  the  first  half  of  this  century.  The 
error  of  the  first  was  first  shown  by  Montaiglon  in  1856,1  and 
its  utter  absurdity  was  conclusively  proved  a  few  years  later 
by  Oesterley's  discovery  of  the  Dolopathos  of  Johannes,  from 
which  Herbert  had  made  his  poem.2  The  second  was  current 
even  until  the  appearance  of  Gaston  Paris's  Deux  Redactions* 
in  1876,  in  which  the  comparatively  recent  date  of  the  His- 
toria,  and  its  immediate  dependence  on  .A*,  has  been  placed 
beyond  question. 

1 .  The  DolopathoK. — The  Dolopathos  exists  in  two  versions, 
the  Latin  prose  of  Johannes  de  Alta  Silva  and  the  Old  French 
poem  of  Herbert.  The  latter  is  preserved,  so  far  as  is  known, 
in  but  three  manuscripts;4  of, the  former,  there  are  known, 
besides  the  original  manuscript  discovered  by  Oesterley,  three 
late  copies  pointed  out  by  Mussafia,5  an  Innsbruck,6  and 
a  British  Museum  MS.7 

1  In  the  preface  to  his  edition  of  the  Herbert  version :  Li  Romans  de 
Dolopathos,  ed.  Brunet  and  Montaiglon,  Paris,  1856. 

3  This  manuscript  was  discovered  by  Oesterley  in  1873,  and  was  published 
by  him  in  the  same  year:  Johannis  de  Alta  Silva  Dolopathos  .  .  .  .,  Strasburg. 
See  reviews  by  Paris,  Romania,  IT,  p.  481  f. ;  by  Studemund,  Z.f.  d.  A.,  xvn, 
p.  415  f.  and  xvin,  p.  221  f . ;  and  by  Kohler,  Jahrb.  f.  ran.  u.  engl.  Lit., 
xiir,  p.  328  f.     Several  manuscripts  discovered  by  Mussafia  ( Wiener  Akad. 
Sitzungsb.,  Ph.  Hist.  CL,  XLVIII,  p.  246  f.,  1864)  prior  to  this,  and  at  first 
supposed  to  be  original,  were  soon  shown  to  be  fifteenth  century  copies 
of  the  older  manuscript. 

'Published  in  the  Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textesfr.  for  1876.     For  the  Historia,  see 

pp.  XXVJII-XLIII. 

4  See  Paris  in  Romania,  n,  p.  503.    A  leaf  of  a  fourteenth  century  MS.  of 
the  Herbert  version  has  been  lately  acquired  by  the  Biblioth£que  Nationale 
—Nouv.  Acq.fr.  934,  No.  6  (Bulletin  de  la  Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textesfr.,  for  1896,  p. 
71  f.).     See  also  Haupt's  Altd.  Blatter,  I,  p.  119  f.,  for  a  German  version  of 
six  stories  of  the  Dolopathos. 

5  See  Wiener  Akad.  Sitzungsb.,  Ph.  Hist.  CL,  XLVIII,  p.  246  f. 
6Also  brought  to  light  by  Oesterley. 

7  Usually  overlooked ;  see  Ward,  Catalogue  of  Romances,  London,  1893,  II, 
p.  228  f. 


22  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

Johannes  de  Alta  Silva,  the  author  of  the  Latin  original, 
was  a  Cistercian  monk  of  the  monastery  of  Haute  Seille.  His 
work  bears  the  title  Dolopathos,  sive  Opusculum  de  rege  et 
seplem  Sapientibus.  It  was  dedicated  to  Bishop  Bertrand  of 
Metz,  who  had  jurisdiction  over  the  monastery  of  Haute  Seille 
from  1184  (when  it  was  transferred  from  the  see  of  Toul  to 
the  see  of  Metz)  to  1212,  during  which  period,  since  Johannes 
would  naturally  dedicate  to  his  own  bishop,  we  may  safely 
place  the  composition  of  his  work.  Paris  favors  a  dating 
between  1207  and  1212  (Romania,  n,  p.  501). 

The  Old  French  poem  of  Herbert  was  made  from  the  Latin 
prose  text  of  Johannes  toward  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of 
the  thirteenth  century  (Montaiglon,  1223-1226  ;  Paris,  before 
1223). 

This  type  of  the  romance  differs  from  all  other  western 
types  in  having  only  one  instructor  for  the  prince.  For  this 
reason  it  has  been  conjectured  that  it  was  founded  on  some 
oriental  original,  but  there  is  no  real  evidence  in  support  of 
this.  In  the  suppression  of  the  queen's  stories,  a  feature  in 
which  it  agrees  with  the  Nachshebi  version,  equally  as  little 
indication  of  an  immediate  eastern  original  is  to  be  found. 

The  Dolopathos  has  only  one  story  (canis)  in  common  with 
the  Eastern  group,  and  inasmuch  as  this,  together  with  three 
other  of  its  stories  (gaza,  puteus,  and  inclusa),  is  also  found  in 
the  Sept  Sages  de  Rome,  it  is  reasonably  certain  that  the  monk 
Johannes  was  acquainted  with  some  version  of  the  latter  type.1 
There  is  only  one  alternative  supposition,  viz.  that  both  types 
grew  up  independently  of  each  other  and  almost  contempo- 
raneously, the  one  drawing  only  one  story  from  the  traditions 
brought  from  the  East,  while  the  other  drew  this  and  three 
others  in  addition, — with  the  further  coincidence  that  both 
receive,  as  the  result  of  like  influence  and  environment,  three 
stories  (gaza,  puteus,  and  indusa)  in  common  which  were  not 

1  See  Comparetti  to  the  contrary ;  Vergil  in  the  Middle  Ages,  translated  by 
Benecke,  London,  1895,  p.  234  f. 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  23 

in  the  eastern  framework.  That  such  was  the  case  is,  to  say 
the  least,  very  improbable. 

But,  in  any  case,  the  prose  Dolopathos  was  made  not  from 
written,  but  from  oral  sources.  This  is  expressly  stated  by 
its  author — who  says  he  wrote  non  ut  visa,  sed  ut  audita — and 
is  borne  out  by  the  introduction  of  the  Lohengrin  story,  which 
appears  here  for  the  first  time,1  as  well  as  by  the  variations  to 
which  both  framework  and  stories  have  been  subjected. 

The  poetical  version  of  Herbert  is  based  directly  on  the 
Latin  prose  version  of  Johannes.  It  contains  many  details 
and  several  important  episodes  which  do  not  appear  in  the 
text  discovered  by  Oesterley,  chief  among  which  additions  are 
(1)  the  story  inclusa,  which  has  been  fused  with  puteus  in 
the  poem,  and  (2)  a  very  interesting  episode  with  which  gaza 
has  been  supplemented.  Gaston  Paris2  thinks  that  these  were 
contained  in  Herbert's  original,  which  he  believes  to  have 
been  an  enlarged  copy  of  the  first  draft  of  the  work  as  seen 
in  the  Oesterley  manuscript ;  but  whether  they  are  to  be  thus 
explained,  or  are  to  be  attributed  to  the  independence  of  the 
poet,  has  not  yet  been  definitely  settled. 

The  Herbert  version  is  very  long,  containing  nearly  13,000 
lines.  In  both  length  and  style  it  stands  in  striking  contrast 
to  the  Keller  metrical  version  of  the  Sept  Sages  de  Rome  (K)? 
which,  although  it  has  nearly  twice  as  many  stories,  has  only 
5,060  lines.  The  Dolopathos  has  an  introduction  of  about 
4,800  lines  where  K  has  but  68. 

The  king  in  this  branch  of  the  Western  group  bears  the 
name  Dolopathos,  and  rules  over  the  island  of  Sicily.  The 
prince  is  called  Lucinius.  Before  his  birth  it  is  predicted  that 
he  will  become  very  wise,  but  will  undergo  many  hardships, 
and  will  ultimately  become  a  worshipper  of  the  true  God. 

1  See  Todd,  La  Naissance  du  Chevalier  au  Oygne,  Introduction,  p.  in  f.,  in 
Publications  of  the  Mod.  Lang.  Assn.  of  America,  vol.  iv,  1889.    See  also  Paris's 
review  in  Romania,  xix,  p.  314  f. 

2  Romania,  n,  p.  500. 

3  See  the  dissertation  of  Ehret,  Der  Verfasser  des  Roman  des  Sept  Sages  und 
Herberz,  Heidelberg,  1886. 


24  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

The  prince's  instruction  begins  when  he  has  reached  the  age 
of  seven.  He  is  sent  to  Rome,  and  put  under  the  care  of  the 
poet  Vergil,  whose  figure  is  supreme  throughout  the  romance, 
and  gives  to  it  one  of  its  strongest  claims  upon  our  interest.1 
The  sages,  who  are,  owing  to  Vergil's  prominence,  placed 
somewhat  in  the  background,  come  up  as  in  the  other  western 
versions,  one  each  day  and  in  a  most  mysterious  fashion, — 
always  just  in  time  to  save  the  prince's  life.  The  prince 
relates  no  story  at  all,  but  Vergil  tells  the  eighth  and  last. 
The  order  of  stories  is  as  follows  :  (1)  canis  (Dog  and  Snake), 
(2)  gaza  (King's  Treasury),  (3)  senes  (Best  Friend),  (4)  creditor 
(the  Pound  of  Flesh  episode  of  the  Merchant  of  Venice),2  (5) 
viduae filius  (Widow's  Son),  (6)  latronis filius  (Master- Thief), 
(7)  cygni  eques  (the  fabled  origin  of  Godfrey  de  Bouillon),  (8) 
inclusa-puteus  (Two  Dreams  and  Husband  Shut  Out)* 

2.  The  Sept  Sages  de  Rome. — The  Sept  Sages  de  Rome,  in 
contradistinction  to  the  Dolopathos,  comprises  a  very  large 
number  of  more  or  less  closely  related  versions.  Probably 
one  hundred  manuscripts  of  its  type  are  already  known,  and 
many  others,  we  may  be  sure,  remain  to  be  revealed  by  further 
research.  The  immediate  source  whence  these  have  sprung 
has  not  come  down  to  us.  The  date,  too,  of  the  parent  ver- 
sion is  uncertain,  but,  in  view  of  its  influence  on  the  Dolopathos 
and  the  comparatively  large  number  of  thirteenth  century  ver- 
sions, it  must  be  placed  as  early  as  1 1 50,  and  it  may  fall  in  a 
time  considerably  anterior  to  this. 

The  normal  number  of  stories  in  this  branch  is  fifteen ;  of 
these  the  queen  relates  seven,  the  seven  sages  one  each,  and 

1  See  Comparetti,  Vergil  in  the  Middle  Ages,  p.  232  f. 

•Ward,  Gitatogue  of  Romances,  n,  p.  122,  makes  the  slight  oversight  of 
asserting  that  the  casket-episode  of  the  Merchant  of  Venice  is  also  intro- 
duced into  the  Dolopathos. 

'These  stories  have  had  a  wide  currency,  and,  in  several  instances,  a 
most  interesting  history.  For  the  fullest  collections  of  analogues  to  them, 
see  the  editions  of  Montaiglon-Brunet  and  Oesterley,  and  the  appendix  to 
the  latter's  edition  of  the  Gesta  Romanorum. 


THE   SEVEN  SAGES.  25 

the  prince  the  fifteenth.  The  scene  of  action  is  prevailingly 
Korne,  though  in  two  instances — K  and  D — it  is  Constanti- 
nople.1 The  emperor's  name  is  Diocletian.2 

The  interrelation  of  the  various  sub-types  into  which  the 
Sept  Sages  falls  has  been  the  subject  of  almost  continuous 
investigation  for  more  than  half  a  century.  The  first  serious 
attempt  at  an  orderly  classification  was  made  by  Goedeke  in 
1866  (Orient  und  Occident,  m,  p.  402  f).  He  was  followed 
two  years  later  by  Mussafia,3  in  a  study  which  possesses  great 
merit,  and  which  served  very  much  to  clear  the  way  for  sub- 
sequent investigation.  But  it  is  to  Gaston  Paris  above  all 
that  credit  is  due  here  for  bringing  order  out  of  chaos.  The 
Preface  to  his  Deux  Redactions  is  by  far  the  most  significant 
contribution  to  the  study  of  the  Seven  Sages  which  has  yet 
been  made,  and  leaves  but  the  one  regret  that  he  has  not 
extended  his  investigations  so  as  to  include  the  problems  of 
the  origin  and  propagation  of  the  romance.  It  goes  without 
saying  that  the  excellence  of  Paris's  work  has  been  recognized 
on  all  sides,  and  that  his  conclusions  have  been  almost  uni- 
versally adopted. 

Paris  classifies  in  five  sub-groups,  as  follows : 

1.  S.    The  Scala  Coeli  abridgment  published  by  Goedeke. 

2.  K.   The  well  known  metrical  version  of  Keller. 

3.  H.    The  very  large  group,  of  which  the  Historia  is  the 
type. 

4.  /.    The  Versio  Italica. 

5.  French  prose  versions  (other  than  JET),  including  ^4*, 
£,  Z>*  ( F),  and  M. 

1.  8.  The  first  of  these,  the  text  contained  in  the  Scala 
Coeli,  a  compilation  of  the  early  fourteenth  century  by  the 
Dominican  Johannes  Junior,  is  a  Latin  prose  abridgment  of  a 
lost  Liber  de  Septem  Sapientibus.  For  the  latter,  Goedeke 

1  This  is  only  partly  true  of  D;  see  Paris,  Deux  Redactions,  p.  1. 

8  There  are  several  exceptions  to  this :  in  K  he  is  called  Vespasian  ;  in 
D*,  Marcomeris,  son  of  Priam  (!);  in  H,  Pontianus, — the  name  Diocletian 
being  transferred  to  the  prince. 

8  Wiener  Akad.  Sitzungsb.,  Ph.  Hist.  Cl.,  LVII,  p.  37  f. 


26  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

(who  has  published  the  text  according  to  the  Scala  Coeli  in 
Orient  u.  Occident,  m,  p.  402  f.)  conjectures  a  date  in  the  first 
half  of  the  thirteenth  century.  An  extract  in  the  Summa 
Recreatorum  (xv  cent.),  which  agrees  very  closely  with  S,  has 
been  pointed  out  by  Mussafia  (Wiener  Akad.  Sitzungsb.,  Ph. 
Hist.  Cl.,  LVII,  p.  83  f.). 

8  differs  materially  from  H,  and  is  almost  as  far  from  K 
and  jD*.  It  stands  nearest  to  L,  having  in  common  with  it 
the  two  stories  filia  and  noverca  in  the  place  of  Roma  and 
inclusa  of  the  remaining  types.  The  agreement  with  Z)*,  in 
that  the  queen  is  defended  on  the  last  day  by  a  champion,  is 
doubtless  a  mere  coincidence  (Paris,  /.  c.,  p.  vin).  Its  only 
influence  seems  to  have  been  that  exercised  on  L.  For 
Goedeke's  claim  that  it  is  the  closest  extant  representative 
of  the  western  original  no  sustaining  argument  has  yet  been 
brought  forward.1 

2.  H.  The  type  of  the  second  group  is  the  well-known 
Historia  Septem  Sapientum  Romae.  Buchner2  enumerates  six- 
teen manuscripts  in  which  the  Historia  has  been  preserved. 
Its  first  edition  appeared  at  Cologne  in  1472,  and  the  bibli- 
ographers report  many  of  subsequent  date.  The  latest  edi- 
tion, and  only  nineteenth  century  reprint,  is  that  of  Buchner.3 
An  Old  French  translation,  printed  at  Geneva  in  1492,  has 
recently  been  republished  by  Paris  as  the  second  text  of 
his  Deux  Redactions  (pp.  55-205).  The  Historia  Calumnia 
Novercali  (Antwerp,  1496)  differs  from  it  mainly  in  the 
omission  of  all  Christian  features. 

The  Historia  is  by  far  the  most  widely  known  of  all 
western  versions,  having  had  equally  as  great  a  vogue  in 
some  other  European  countries — Germany  for  instance — as  in 
France.  In  English  the  Wynkyn  de  Worde  text  (to  which 

1  Ward,  CaUdoyue  of  Romances,  u,  p.  200,  erroneously  states  that  Paris 
upholds  Goedeke  here. 

*  Erlanger  Beiiraye  zur  englischen  Pkiloloyie,  v,  p.  1.     Of  these  six  were 
first  pointed  out  by  Paris,  /.  c.,  p.  \\.\i\, — eight  by  Varnhagen,  Eine  Ilal. 
Prosaversion  d.  Sieben  Weisen,  p.  .\  v. 

*  Erlang.  Beitr.,  v,  pp.  7-90.    An  Innsbruck  MS.  which  dates  from  1342. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  27 

the  many  English  chap-book  versions  owe  their  origin),  the 
Copland,  and  the  Holland  versions  found  in  it  their  ultimate 
original.  With  the  Germans  the  Historia  type  is  practically 
the  only  one  which  has  found  acceptance,  and  the  number  of 
versions,  either  in  Latin  or  German,  which  are  contained  in 
their  libraries  is  very  large.1  It  is  under  this  form,  also,  that 
the  romance  has  acquired  its  popularity  in  other  Germanic 
and  in  the  Slavonic  languages.2 

The  history  of  opinion  with  regard  to  this  type  of  the 
romance  possesses  much  interest.  Until  quite  recently,  as  has 
been  seen,  H  was  supposed  to  be  the  oldest  member  of  the 
Western  group.  Goedeke,  in  1866,  was  the  first  to  break 
with  this  tradition,  but  without  showing  why.  Paulin  Paris 
followed  in  1869,  throwing  the  question  open.3  Comparetti, 
also,  in  the  same  year,  expressed  the  opinion  that  H  was  far 
from  representing  the  western  original.4  The  matter  was  not 
satisfactorily  cleared  up  until  the  appearance  of  Gaston  Paris's 
book  in  1876.  The  results  of  Paris' s  investigation  (/.  c.,  p. 
xxviii  f.)  are  to  entirely  dethrone  H  from  the  position  which 
had  been  traditionally  accorded  it,  and  to  establish  for  it  a 
date  in  the  first  half  of  the  fourteenth  century,  and  an  im- 
mediate basis  on  type  J.*.6 

The  distinguishing  features  of  H,  aside  from  its  slight 
difference  from  A*  in  the  order  of  stories,  are  the  introduction 

1  For  the  first  general  discussion  of  the  romance  in  Germany,  see  the 
preface  to  Keller's  Li  Romans  des  Sept  Sages,  Tubingen,  1837.  A  more 
comprehensive  discussion  of  the  German  versions  accompanies  his  edition 
of  the  Hans  von  Biihel  metrical  version,  Diodelianus  LeJ)en  (Quedlinburg, 
1841). 

8  Keller  enumerates  versions,  either  in  manuscript  or  in  print,  in  Dutch, 
Welsh,  Icelandic,  Swedish,  Danish,  Polish,  Hungarian,  Russian,  and  Arme- 
nian ;  see  the  prefaces  to  his  two  editions  cited  above.  See,  also,  Murko, 
"Die  Geschichte  v.  d.  Sieben  Weisen  b.  d.  Slaven"  in  Wiener Akad.  Sit- 
zungsb.,  Ph.  Hist.  Cl.,  cxxn,  1890,  and  "Beitr.  zur  Textgesch.  d.  H.  S.  S." 
in  Zeitschr.f.  vergl.  Lit.-gesch.,  pp.  1-34,  1892. 

3  Biblioph.  Fran$ais,  iv,  p.  69  f.  4  Book  of  Sindibdd,  p.  47. 

5  It  is  hard  to  see  how  Landau,  Quellen  des  Dekameron,  2d  ed.,  p.  51  f., 
and  a  few  others,  can  still  persist  in  their  adherence  to  the  old  view. 


28  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

of  the  stories  amatores  and  amid  (the  latter  appended  to 
vaticinium),  the  fusion  of  senescalcus  and  Roma,  and  its 
unusual  mass  of  details. 

3.  K.    The  Old  French  metrical  version,  Li  Romans  des 
Sept  Sages,  was  published  by  Keller,  at  Tubingen,  in  1836. 
Of  this  version  there  exists  only  one  complete  manuscript,  to 
which  its  editor  gives  a  date  in  the  late  thirteenth  century. 
A  fragment  of  a  metrical  text  agreeing  closely  with  it  in 
content,  but  differing  slightly  in  order  of  stories,  is  preserved 
in  MS.  620  of  the  Library  of  Chartres.1    An  edition  of  this 
has  been  promised  by  Paris. 

K  has  the  same  stories  as  Z>*  and  A*,  but  in  a  different 
order.  The  agreement  in  order,  as  also  in  incident,  is,  as  a 
rule,  closest  with  D* ;  in  the  stories  vidua,  Roma,  inclusa,  and 
vaticinium,  however,  K  exhibits  a  very  close,  at  times  even 
verbal,  agreement  with  A*.  In  explanation  of  this,  the  possi- 
bility of  an  influence  of  jfiTon^.*  is  precluded  by  the  fact  that 
the  former  is  of  earlier  date ;  hence  it  is  necessary  to  posit  for 
A*  and  K  a  common  source,  designated  by  Paris  as  V. 

4.  I.   The  Versio  Italica  was  first  so  styled  by  Mussafia  in 
his  study  of  the  Italian  versions,  in  Jahrb.f.  rom.  u.  englische 
Lit.,  iv,  p.  166  f.,  1862.     This  group  consists  of  six  versions, 
three  of  which  are  in  Latin.     One  of  the  latter  has  been 
brought  to  light  only  within  the  last  few  years;2  one  was 
published  by  Mussafia  ( Wiener  Akad.  Sitzungsb.,  Ph.  Hist. 
CL,  LVII,  p.  94  f.)  in  1868,  and  is  well  known;  and  the  third 
is  the  British  Museum  MS.  Addl.  15685.3    Of  the  Italian 
versions   one  is  in  verse,4  but  of  late  date, — Rajna  in  his 
description  (Romania,  vn,  pp.  22  f.,  369  f. ;  x,  p.  1  f.)  plac- 

1  See  Paris,  I.  c.,  p.  in  n.,  and  Paul  Meyer  in  the  Bulletin  d.  I.  Soc.  des 
Anc.  Textes  francais,  1894,  p.  40  f.  The  order  of  stories  here  is— tentamina, 
Roma,  avis,  sapientes,  vid.ua,  Virgilius,  inclusa,  vaticinium.  For  the  order  in 
K  and  other  versions,  see  the  comparative  table,  p.  35. 

*  By  Murko ;  see  Romania,  xx,  p.  373. 

1  Ward,  Catalogue  of  Romances,  n,  p.  207  f.  Hitherto  unnoticed  in  this 
connection. 

4  Edited  by  Rajna,  Storia  di  Slefano,  Bologna,  1881. 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  29 

ing  it  between  1440  and  1480.  The  two  remaining  Italian 
versions  early  underwent  publication,  one  in  1832  by  Delia 
Lucia,1  the  other  by  Cappelli  in  1865.2 

The  order  of  stories  in  J  is  materially  different  from  that 
in  any  other  group  or  version.  The  queen  in  this  group, 
instead  of  relating  the  first  story,  follows  in  each  instance  the 
sage,  thus  reversing  the  order, — 2  becoming  1,  4-3,  and  so 
on.  In  consequence  of  this  innovation,  the  number  of  stories 
is  reduced  to  fourteen,  the  seventh  being  crowded  out.3 

In  the  absence  of  the  filia-noverca  and  amatores-amici 
features,  I  groups  itself  with  K,  D*,  and  A*.  Its  closest 
agreement  in  incident  is  with  A*9  in  which  recent  scholars 
believe  it  to  have  had  its  source.4 

The  modern  Italian  Erasto,  which  at  one  time  was  placed 
by  itself  as  representing  a  free  adaptation  of  the  romance, 
and  as  bearing  a  somewhat  similar  relation  to  the  remaining 
Italian  versions  as  the  Dolopathos  to  the  prevailing  French 
type,  is  now  universally  acknowledged  to  be  an  offspring  of 
the  Versio  Italica.  The  Erasto  has  been  very  popular  in  its 
own  country,  and  has  been  translated  into  other  languages. 
The  first  edition  of  it  appeared  at  Venice  in  1542,  the  last  in 
1841.  An  English  translation  was  made  by  Frances  Kirkman 
in  1674. 

5.  French  Prose  Redactions.  The  number  of  French  prose 
redactions  is  very  large.  Paris  already  in  1876  knew  of  nine- 
teen manuscripts  in  Paris,  besides  the  four  in  Brussels,  and 
one  in  the  Cambridge  University  Library.  A  number  of 
others  have  been  since  pointed  out.5 

1  Delia  Lucia,  Novella  antica  scritia  nel  buon  sec.  d.  lingua,  Venice,  1832. 

2  Cappelli,  //  libro  dei  sette  savi  di  Roma,  Bologna,  1865. 

3  Jt  is  interesting  to  note  here  that  the  story  thus  discarded  is  zenescalcus, — 
a  feature  in  which  the  Versio  Italica  has  anticipated  one  of  the  English 
versions — Cambridge  Ff,  n,  38  (F). 

4  See,  for  the  most  recent  opinion,  Rajna  in  Romania,  vii,  p.  369  f. 

5  These  are  mentioned  under  the  discussion  of  the  various  groups  into 
which  they  fall. 


30  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

(1).  Paris  classifies  under  the  sub-groups  D*  (T7),  L,  A*, 
and  M.  Of  these  M — the  Male  Marastre — is  of  little  interest 
other  than  as  showing  the  immense  popularity  of  the  romance 
in  the  thirteenth  century.  Only  three  manuscripts  of  it  have 
so  far  been  brought  to  light.  In  all  these  the  emperor  is 
Diocletian  and  the  prince,  Fiseus;  Marcus,  son  of  Cato, 
is  given  prominence;  and,  a  feature  which  distinguishes  this 
sharply  from  all  other  groups,  six  new  stories  are  substituted 
for  a  corresponding  number  of  those  in  the  prevailing  types. 
The  original  of  M  is  believed  to  have  been  made  on  a  very 
mutilated  manuscript  of  the  Jl*-type.  The  new  stories,  which 
are  of  a  much  lower  order  than  those  they  displace,  are  proba- 
bly the  invention  of  the  author.1 

(2).  With  M  may  be  associated  the  numerous '  continuations ' 2 
of  the  Sept  Sages  in  French,  of  which  the  most  important  is 
the  Marques  de  Rome.  This  type  originated  in  Picardy  in  the 
thirteenth  century.  A  version  of  it  has  been  recently  pub- 
lished by  Alton  (Li  Romans  de  Marques  de  Rome,  Tubingen, 
1 889).  In  the  introduction  to  this  edition,  the  editor  states 
that  the  romance  was  certainly  not  written  later  than  1277, 
and  probably  even  forty  years  earlier  (Alton,  p.  xiv).  It 
seems  to  have  met  with  considerable  popularity,  as  Alton 
describes  ten  manuscripts  which  still  survive.  It  doubtless 
had  its  ultimate  basis  in  A* — Alton  thinks  with  M  as  an 
intervening  stage,  but  Paris  (Romania,  xix,  p.  493)  denies 
this,  maintaining  that  M  is  posterior  to  the  Marques. 

(3).  D*.  The  Version  Derimee,  a  unique  prose  manuscript 
published  by  Paris  as  the  first  text  of  his  Deux  Redactions 
(pp.  1-55),  is  thus  called  on  account  of  the  numerous  instances 
of  rime  still  discernible  in  the  text,  and  which  prove  beyond 
doubt  a  metrical  original.3 

1  See  Paris,  /.  c.,  p.  xxnr  f. 

*  For  these  compare  P.  Paris,  Les  MSS.franfais  de  la  Bibl.  du  Roi,  Paris, 
1836,  i,  p.  109  f.     More  accessible  in  Leroux  de  Lincy,  /.  c.,  p.  x  f. 
8  This  was  first  shown  by  Paris,  Deux  Redactions,  p.  v  f. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  31 

_D*  agrees  more  closely  with  K  than  with  any  other  known 
version.  It  cannot  have  been  based  on  K,  however,  as  Paris 
has  shown,  but  the  two  doubtless  flow  from  a  common  source, 
which  Paris  designates  as  V.  From  this  V,  also,  the  Chartres 
manuscript  was  in  all  probability  made  (Paris,  1.  c.,  p.  x.) 

(4).  There  remain  the  two  families  L  and  A*.  The  first 
of  these  comprises  all  versions  of  the  type  of  the  first  Leroux 
de  Lincy  print,1  in  which  the  order  of  stories  is  arbor,  canis, 
,  medicus,  gaza,  puteus,  senescalcus,  tentamina,  Virgilius, 
rix,  sapientes,  noverca,  filia.  Only  six  manuscripts  (four 
strictly  according  to  L,  and  two  slightly  influenced  by  A*) 
were  known  to  Paris  (I.  c.,  p.  10  f.).  To  these  must  be  added 
the  Catalan  version  in  ottava  rima,  edited  by  Mussafia(  Wiener 
Akad.  Denkschr.,  xxv,  p.  185  f.,  1376),  and  five  Old  French 
prose  manuscripts,  partly  fragmentary,  enumerated  by  Paul 
Meyer  in  Bulletin  de  la  Soc.  des  Anc.  Textes  fr.  for  1894, 
p.  38  f.2 

In  its  employment  of  the  stories  filia  and  noverca,  L  at  once 
groups  itself  with  8.  This,  however,  is  not  the  only  feature 
which  the  two  types  have  in  common.  A  general  comparison 
with  the  rest  of  the  Western  group  serves  to  show  that  (if  we 
may  except  A*  for  the  time  being)  8  is  also  nearest  to  L  in 
motive  (Paris,  1.  c.,  p.  xn).  In  order  of  stories,  too,  S  and 
L  fall  together,  the  only  differences  being  the  reversal  on  the 
part  of  L  of  tentamina  and  puteus,  and  the  suppression  of 
vidua  and  vaticinium.  Paris  has  therefore  concluded  that  L 
was  made  on  a  manuscript  of  8  which  was  mutilated  toward 
the  end,  and  that  the  scribe  has  in  consequence  had  to  trust  to 
his  memory  for  his  last  stories  (/.  c.,  p.  xni). 

1  Leroux  de  Lincy,  Romans  des  Sept  Sages,  Paris,  1838,  pp.  1-76. 

2  Meyer  does  not  express  himself  definitely  as  to  the  class  of  but  one  of 
these — the  Chartres  MS.,  which  he  groups  with  L.     He  implies,  however, 
in  his  statement  that  the  Bib.  Nat.  fragment  (p.  39,  n.  2)  belongs  to  A*, 
that  all  the  rest  belong  to  L.     Nevertheless,  his  notices  leave  the  impres- 
sion  that  some  of  these  manuscripts  (possibly  all  except  the  two  just 
mentioned)  have  not  been  handled,  and  that  a  part  of  them  may  yet  be 
found  to  belong  to  the  larger  group  .4*. 


32  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

(5).  A*,  the  largest  and  most  important  of  all  French 
groups,  has  been  reserved  for  the  last  place.  To  this  family 
pertain,  besides  its  immediate  members,  the  groups  Marques, 
M,  I,  and  H;  it  is,  then,  the  original,  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, of  four-fifths  of  the  manuscripts  and  prints  of  the 
romance  which  survive.  It  is  not  only  the  ultimate  source 
of  all  Italian  versions, — whether  direct,  as  with  the  D'Ancona 
edition,  or  indirect  through  J,  but  it  is  also,  through  H,  the 
parent  of  almost  all  the  manifold  versions  of  the  Sept  Sages 
outside  of  Romance.  And,  what  is  of  prime  interest  and 
importance  to  the  English  student,  it  was  some  manuscript 
of  this  group  which  furnished  the  immediate  original  of  the 
Middle  English  versions. 

Under  group  A*  Paris  includes  all  manuscripts  of  the  type 
of  the  Italian  version  published  by  D'Ancoua.1  He  enumer- 
ates in  his  preface  (p.  xvi  f.),  in  addition  to  the  Italian 
version  whence  the  group  is  named,  fourteen  manuscripts 
in  Old  French,2  several  of  which  date  from  the  thirteenth 
century.  Four  other  manuscripts,  pointed  out  since  the 
appearance  of  Paris's  work  (Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  3860  [xiv  cent.], 
St.  Jno.  Bapt.  Coll.,  Oxf.,  102  [xiv  cent.],3  Cambr.  Univy. 
Liby.  Gg.  6,  28,4  and  a  fragment  in  the  Bib.  Nat.-Nouv. 
Acq.  fr.  1263  [xm  cent.]),5  increase  the  number  of  French 
versions  to  eighteen.  To  this  family,  also,  belongs  the  British 
Museum  Italian  prose  version  published  by  Varuhagen.6 

The  text  of  A*7  falls  into  two  parts, — the  first  eleven 
stories  (Ai*)  being  textually  very  close  to  L,  while  the  last 
four  (-42*)>  as  Paris  has  shown,  agree  very  closely  with  K. 

1 11  Libro  del  Sette  Savj  di  Roma,  Pisa,  1864. 

2  One  of  these  is  the  manuscript  2137  of  the  Bib.  Nat.,  published  in  part 
by  Leroux  de  Lincy,  pp.  79-110. 

3  For  these  two,  cf.  Varnhagen,  Z.f.  rom.  Ph.,  I,  p.  555  f.    See  also  for  the 
first,  Ward,  /.  c.,  n,  p.  199  f. 

4  Romania,  xv,  p.  348. 

6  Delisle,  MSS.  lat.  et  fr.  ajoulees  aux  Fondes,  etc.,  Paris,  1891,  I,  p.  259. 
*Eine  Ital.  Prosaversion  der  Sieben  Weisen,  Berlin,  1881. 

7  By  this  is  meant  the  second  Leroux  de  Lincy  redaction.    Other  versions 
of  this  type,  as,  e.  g.,  MS.  6849  (new  No.  189),  are  not  so  close  to  L. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES. 

The  composite  nature  of  the  text  Paris  explains  as  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  scribe  primarily  employed  a  fragment  of  L  con- 
taining only  eleven  tales,  and  that  A",  or  its  source,  F,  has 
been  used  for  the  remaining  four  tales.1  And  this  seems  to  be 
borne  out  by  internal  evidence ;  for  A2*  not  only  falls  in  with 
jSTas  regards  incident,  but,  as  in  the  case  of  Z)*,  there  is  often 
even  a  textual  agreement  in  which  entire  lines  that  appear 
in  Jv^are  reproduced.2  Yet,  as  already  observed,  this  metrical 
original  of  J.a*  cannot  have  been  K,  since  there  are  a  number 
of  ^i*-manuscripts  which  antedate  the  latter,  especially  if  we 
may  accept  Keller,  who  despite  his  maintenance  of  the  priority 
of  Kj  ventured  a  date  no  earlier  than  1 284,  or  later  in  all 
probability  than  the  composition  of  the  English  parent  text. 
Moreover,  a  comparison  of  Af  with  K  and  D*  will  show 
that  each  of  the  latter  possesses  features  in  common  with  .4* 
which  are  not  found  in  the  other.  The  original  of  ^42*  must 
therefore  be  sought  in  some  other  version  than  K} — probably, 
as  Paris  assumes,  in  V.3 

1  Deux  Redactions,  p.  xvm. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  xix,  for  a  citation  of  parallel  passages  from  A  2*  and  K.  Almost 
as  noteworthy  agreement  will  be  found  in  some  of  the  remaining  stories. 

3  But  can  this  be  final  ?  Is  it  not  possible,  however  improbable  it  may 
seem,  that  the  manuscripts  of  A*  which  have  survived  were  ultimately 
based  on  a  metrical  text  which  preserved  the  -A*-order  of  stories  (or,  at 
least,  was  nearer  the  ^4*-order  than  the  K-,  C*-  or  _D*-order),  and  which  was 
closely  related  with  V?  In  this  case,  of  course,  L  (the  first  eleven  stories), 
would  have  to  be  explained  as  based  on  A*  (rather  than  the  reverse,  as 
with  Paris),  and  A  2*  as  representing  a  prosing  of  a  portion  of  the  metrical 
A*,  to  which  K  has  very  nearly  approached.  Against  this  view  would 
be  the  strong  evidence  submitted  by  Paris.  In  favor  of  it,  however,  are 
the  considerations  (1)  that  this  would  better  account  for  the  popularity 
of  the  ^4*-type  during  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth  century ;  (2)  that  the 
Middle  English  versions  both  favor  a  metrical  original  and  were  based  on 
a  text  nearer  to  K  in  many  details  than  is  the  De  Lincy  print  of  A* ;  (3) 
that  to  base  A*  on  L,  and  consequently,  as  Paris  maintains,  ultimately  on 
S,  is  to  connect  it  with  a  different  line  of  tradition  from  that  which  it 
seems  to  follow  (cf.  certain  textual  agreements  with  K  which  A*,  L  exhibit : 
p.  16 :  "  comme  il  fist  au  cheualier  de  son  leureier  "  =:  JT 1141-2 :  "  Comme 
il  fist  au  cheualier,  Ki  atort  occist  son  leurier ; "  p.  39  :  "  II  apela  son  senes- 
chal "=  K 1509 :  "  Lors  apiela  son  seneschal ; "  p.  40 :  "  Vos  gerrez  auec  le 

3 


34  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

Resume*.  Looked  at  externally  the  Western  group  falls 
into  two  main  sub-groups,  the  Dolopathos  and  the  Sept  Sages 
de  Rome.  The  Dolopathos,  however,  did  not  develop  from 
the  Eastern  group  independently,  but  must  have  had  an 
ultimate  basis  (doubtless  through  an  oral  medium)  on  some 
version  of  the  larger  group. 

The  Sept  Sages  de  Rome,  as  regards  order  and  content  of 
stories,  also  falls  into  two  groups, — one  represented  by  S  and 
L,  the  other  by  K,  Z)*,  C*,  (  F),  and  A*  and  its  variants,  /, 
Hy  M,  and  Marques.  Peculiar  to  the  former  group  (8,  L)  are 
the  stories  filia  and  noverca,  to  the  latter  the  stories  Roma 
and  inclusa. 

Which  of  these  groups  represents  most  faithfully  the  lost 
western  original  is,  at  the  present  stage  of  our  knowledge, 
impossible  to  determine,  but  the  fact  that  the  Dolopathos  of 
Herbert  contains  the  story  inclusa  seems  to  point  to  the 
priority  of  the  K-,  D*-,  J.*-group.1 

With  respect  to  the  separate  sub-groups,  L  may  have  been 
based  on  A*  and  8,  though  the  view  of  Paris,  that  it  had  its 
basis  in  8  alone,  carries  with  it  greater  probability.  Either 
explanation  leaves  the  origin  of  8  unexplained.  K,  D*,  (7*  go 
back  to  the  same  lost  metrical  original,  V.  A*  is  probably  to 
be  explained  with  Paris  as  having  its  source  in  L  and  V9  though 
this,  as  yet,  has  been  by  no  means  established.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  a  metrical  version  of  A*  existed  at  some  time. 

roi"=K\53l:  "Auoeques  le  roi  vous  girois;"  p.  50:  "Qui  me  ferra,  je 
trerai  fo"=  K  3938:  "Ki  me  ferra,  je  trairai  ia");  (4)  that  we  may  still 
find  in  A*,  what  appear  to  be  reflections  of  a  versified  original ;  thus,  p.  15  : 
"  Celz  que  je  mout  amoie  et  en  qui  je  me  fioie ; "  p.  23 :  "  Li  sangliers  vint 
vers  1'alier,  si  commenya  fl  mengier,"  and  "  quant  il  vit  le  sanglier,  si  s'en 
volt  aler;"  p.  33:  "Quant  eles  virent  lor  pi-re  trainer,  si  commenci6rent 
(a.  br£re  et)  it  crier;"  p.  50:  "Sire,  il  ot  en  ceste  vile  un  clerc  qui  ot  non 
Vergile."  When  all  this  is  said,  however,  the  case  is  by  no  means  strong, 
and  we  would  not  presume  to  insist  on  this  theory  as  presenting  the  proba- 
bility, by  any  means,  which  attaches  to  the  view  set  forth  by  Paris;  it  is 
merely  suggested  as  an  alternate  possibility,  which  has  not  yet  been  dis- 
posed of. 

I8ee  also,  Paris,  Romania,  iv,  p.  128,  for  the  additional  evidence  in 
support  of  this  view  drawn  from  the  story  Roma. 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES. 


35 


Table  of  Stories  in  the  Western  Versions.1 


A* 

L 

S 

K 

D* 

H 

/ 

M 

Dolopathoa. 

arbor 

arbor 

arbor 

srDor 

•\r\\i\r 

canis 

canis 

canis 

flrDor 
canis 

m*i  )i  >  r 
canis 

canis 

canis 

ctruur 

canis 

canis 

aper 

aper 

aper 

senesc. 

senesc. 

aper 

arbor 

aper 



medicus 

medicus 

medicus 

medicus 

medicus 

puteus 

medicus 

medicus 

gaza 

gaza 

gaza 

gaa 

aper 

aper 

gaza 

aper 

gaza 



puteus 

puteus 

tentam. 

puteus 

puteus 

avis 

tentam. 

avis 

senes 

senescalcus 

senesc. 

senesc. 

sapient. 

sapient. 

sapient. 

sapient. 

filius 



tentamina 

ten  tarn. 

puteus 

tentam. 

tentam. 

tentam. 

avis 

vidua 

creditor 

Virgilius 

Virgil. 

Virgil. 

Roma. 

Roma. 

Virgil. 

gaza 

nutrix 



avis 

avis. 

avis. 

avis 

avis 

medicus 

inclusa 

Antenor 

vid.—  fil. 

sapientes 
vidua 

sapient, 
noverca 

sapient, 
vidua 

gaza 
vidua 

gaza 
vidua 

sen.  —  Rom. 
amatores 

Roma 
vidua 

spurius 
cardamum 

latro.—  fil. 

Roma 

filia 

filia 

Virgil. 

Virgil. 

inclusa 

Virgil. 

assass. 



inclusa 



noverca 

inclusa 

inclusa 

vidua 

puteus 

inclusa 

cjg-—  eq. 

vaticinium 



vaticin. 

vaticin. 

vatic,  -f- 

vat.  —  amici. 

vaticin. 

vaticin. 

incl.  —  put. 

II.   THE  ROMANCE  IN  ENGLAND. 

The  enormous  popularity  of  the  Seven  Sages  in  French 
found  but  a  faint  reflection  in  early  English.  So  far,  only 
eight  Middle  English  versions  have  been  brought  to  light, 
and  as  at  least  seven  of  these  go  back  to  the  same  lost  origi- 
nal, it  appears  that  the  romance  did  not  at  first  take  a  very 
firm  root  in  English  soil.  Nor  has  it  in  more  recent  times 
acquired  the  popularity  in  England  that  it  enjoyed  in  other 
countries  of  Europe ;  for,  besides  the  numerous  chap-book 
versions,  all  which  are  of  a  low  order  of  excellence,  there 
have  survived  only  two  versions  belonging  to  the  Modern 
English  period. 

Yet,  despite  this  comparatively  small  popularity  of  the 
romance  in  England,  it  is  very  evident  that  the  English 

1  The  order  of  the  fragmentary  Old  French  metrical  version  C*  is  as 
follows : — tentamina,  Roma,  avis,  sapientes,  vidua,  Virgilius,  inciusa,  vaticinium. 
In  the  Varnhagen  Italian  prose  version,  puteus  has  been  supplanted  by  a 
new  story,  which  V.  calls  mercator.  All  the  Middle  English  versions  save 
F  (for  which  see  p.  62  of  this  study)  follow  the  4*-order.  The  later  Eng- 
lish versions  belong  to  group  H. 


36  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

versions  have  not  received  attention  commensurate  with  their 
importance.  Indeed,  there  is  no  department  of  the  study  of 
the  Seven  Sages,  much  neglected  though  all  have  unfortu- 
nately been,  which  has  been  more  neglected  than  the  English. 
Weber,  the  first  in  the  field,  offered  with  his  edition  of  the 
Auchinleck  text  practically  no  introduction  at  all.1  Likewise 
Wright,  in  the  essay  which  accompanied  the  Cambridge  text 
(Dd,  I,  17),  while  he  presented  an  abstract  of  the  Historia, 
confined  the  discussion  of  his  own  text,  singularly  enough,  to 
less  than  two  pages.2  Besides  these,  Ellis  in  his  Specimens? 
Clouston  in  his  Book  of  Sindibadf  and  Gomme  in  the  preface 
to  his  reprint  of  the  Wynkyn  de  Worde  edition 5  have  sub- 
mitted analyses  of  the  Weber,  Wright,  and  Wynkyn  de  Worde 
editions  respectively,  and  sundry  others  have  made  incidental 
references ;  but  there  has  so  far  appeared  only  one  detailed 
and  serious  investigation  of  the  problems  which  the  English 
versions  present — the  dissertation  Ueber  die  mittelenglischen 
Fassungen  der  Sage  von  den  sieben  weisen  Meistern,  Breslau, 
1885,  by  Paul  Petras.  This  scholar,  in  dealing  with  the 
source  and  inter-connection  of  the  English  versions,  has 
arrived  at  some  very  gratifying  results,  but  his  work  leaves 
much  to  be  desired.  Three  of  the  eight  Middle  English 
versions  have  escaped  notice  at  his  hands,  as  also,  for  some 
unaccountable  reason,  the  well-known  edition  of  Wynkyn  de 
Worde, — and  a  good  half  of  his  conclusions  may  be  overthrown 
by  a  more  thorough  investigation.  In  view,  then,  of  this 
manifest  neglect  of  the  English  versions  another  detailed 
study  of  them — especially  of  the  relations  of  the  Middle 

1  Metrical  Romances,  Edinburgh,  1810,  I,  p.  LV  and  in,  pp.  1-153. 

*  The  Seven  Sages,  Percy  Society  Publications,  vol.  xvi,  p.  LXVIII,  London, 
1845;  also  in  Warton's  History  of  English  Poetry,  ed.  Hazlitt,  London,  1871, 
I,  p.  305  f. 

3  Specimens  of  Early  English  Metrical  Romances,  London,  1811,  in,  pp. 
1-101. 

4 Book  ofSindibdd  [Glasgow],  1884,  p.  327  f. 

6  The  History  of  the  Seven  Wise  Masters  of  Rome,  published  for  the  Villon 
Society,  London,  1885. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  37 

English   manuscripts — will   not,  it   is   believed,   be  deemed 
untimely. 

II  (a).   The  Middle  English  Versions. 

The  Middle  English  group  comprises  eight  known  versions, 
in  as  many  different  manuscripts.  All  these  are  in  verse, 
and  in  the  octosyllabic  or  four-stressed  couplet. 

They  are  as  follows :  Auchinleck  (^4.),  Arundel  140  (Ar), 
Egerton  1995  (E),  Balliol  College  354  (5),  Cambridge  Ff, 
n,  38  (F),  Cotton  Galba  E,  ix  (C),  Cambridge  Dd,  i,  17  (D), 
and  Asloan  (As).1 

1.    Description  of  the  Manuscripts. 

A. — The  Auchinleck  MS.  of  the  Advocate's  Library,  Edin- 
burgh, denoted  throughout  as  A.  For  a  general  description 
of  this  manuscript,  see  Kolbing,  Englische  Studien,  vu,  p. 
185  f.  The  text  of  the  Seven  Sages  occupies  ff.  85a-99d, 
and  is  fragmentary  at  both  beginning  and  end,  only  2645 
lines  remaining.  It  has  been  published  by  Weber,  Metrical 
Romances  j  Edinburgh,  1810,  in,  pp.  1-153,  where  it  com- 
prises lines  135-2779,  the  Cotton  MS.  (C)  having  been  used  for 
the  remainder.  For  a  collation  of  this  edition  with  the  manu- 
script, see  Kolbing,  Englische  Studien,  vi,  p.  443  f.  Copious 
extracts  with  an  analysis  may  be  found  in  Ellis's  Specimens, 
London,  1811,  in,  pp.  1-101.  With  regard  to  date  of  com- 
position there  is  no  internal  evidence  other  than  linguistic; 
since,  however,  the  Auchinleck  MS.  dates  from  about  1330, 
the  composition  of  A  must  fall  before  that  time.2  The  form 

1 1  have  handled  and  made  transcripts  of  all  these  manuscripts  save  those 
which  have  been  printed  and  the  Asloan.  Five  of  them  (A,  E,  (7,  F,  and 
D)  have  been  studied  either  in  whole  or  in  part  by  Petras,  and  the  Asloan 
MS.  was  also  known  to  him  through  Laing's  very  incomplete  description  of 
it  in  the  preface  to  his  edition  of  the  Holland  text,  p.  xn.  Of  the  Arundel 
and  Balliol  manuscripts  Petras  was  apparently  unaware. 

2  Cf.  Morsbach,  M.  E.  Grammatik,  Halle,  1896,  p.  xi,  and  Brandl  in 
Grundriss,  n,  1,  p.  635. 


38  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

hardly  justifies  a  dating  earlier  than  1300.  In  text  and 
metre  A  is,  as  a  rule,  very  good,  though  in  both  there  are 
occasional  imperfections  and  corruptions.1  The  dialect  is 
Kentish,  though  not  of  the  strict  type.2 

Ar. — MS.  Arundel  140  of  the  British  Museum, — cited  as 
Ar.  Paper,  dating  from  the  first  half  of  the  fifteenth  century. 
For  general  description,  see  Ward,  Catalogue  of  Romances,  n, 
p.  224.  This  text  occupies  ff.  152-1655,  and  is  fragmentary, 
beginning  with  the  conclusion  of  aper  (3)  and  ending  with 
the  21st  line  of  vaticinium  (15);  2565  lines  remain.  It  is 
very  much  faded,  and  in  many  cases  illegible,  especially  at 
the  end  of  the  b-  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  c-columns.  With 
regard  to  initial  capitalization,  it  is  very  irregular.  A  line 
has  been  lost  after  1.  618 ;  after  1.  919  an  extra  line  has  been 
introduced  with  no  corresponding  rime.  The  text  is  metri- 
cally very  poor,  and  many  final  e's  have  to  be  inserted  in 
order  to  secure  the  required  four  stresses ;  there  are  also  a 
number  of  imperfect  rimes  (such  as  yspede :  saue,  243-4) 
and  other  textual  irregularities ;  nevertheless,  Ar,  as  is  shown 
below,  is  the  closest  representative  of  the  lost  M.  E.  original. 
The  dialect  is  Kentish.3  The  text  has  not  been  published. 

1  There  are  many  emendations  which  lie  on  the  surface  and  which  are 
sustained  by  the  closely  related  versions  Ar,  E,  etc.  Some  of  these  are : 
(1)  for  schild  1016  read  sckuld(e)— cf.  F  1487,  Ar,  B,  E]  (2)  for  swich  1031 
read  syke  or  seke— cf.  Ar  91,  etc.;  (3)  for  tol  of  2050  read  to  lof—cf.  E  2082, 
etc. ;  (4)  for  to-ddue  2417  read  go  delue—cf.  B  2509,  etc. ;  (5)  after  He  2657, 
insert  \>ou$t — cf.  Ar  1782,  etc. 

8  A.  S.  y  is  regularly  represented  by  the  e-sound,  though  this  may  not 
always  be  graphic.  Of  the  27  determining  rimes,  22,  or  81  per  cent., 
have  the  e-coloring.  There  is  nothing  in  other  developments  to  contradict 
this  result.  The  only  Northern  forms  in  the  rime  are  a  pres.  part,  in 
-and,  1977-8,  and  two  instances  of  the  third  pers.  sing,  of  the  present  tense 
in  «,  615-6  and  937-8. 

3  To  the  development  of  A.  S.  y  (stable  or  unstable,  long  or  short)  into  e, 
there  is  only  one  certain  exception :  vn/ne ;  syne,  691-2.  Elsewhere  we  find 
only  the  e-quality;  cf.  nede:  hyde,  383-4;  ifet:  iknet,  601-2;  gardyner :  fyr, 
863-4,  872-3;  also  892-3,  939-40,  979-80,  1433-4,  1515-6,  1535-6,  1541-2, 
1583-4,  1761-2,  1847-8,  2059-60.  The  additional  rime-evidence  is  alto- 
gether confirmatory  of  a  Southern  scribe :  A.  S.  a  >  o  unexceptionally,  the 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  39 

E.— MS.  Egerton  1995  of  the  British  Museum,1 — cited 
throughout  as  E.  Ff.  3-54b.  Paper,  dating  from  the  fif- 
teenth century, — probably  the  second  half.2  Written  in  single 
columns,  with  initials  in  red.  Very  regular  as  regards  capital- 
ization. Complete,  containing  3588  lines,  and  bearing  the 
title  Seven  Sages  of  Rome,  with  the  colophon  Expliciunt  Septem 
Sapientes.  Before  the  first  story,  arbor,  stands  the  simple 
rubric,  "  He[re]  begynnythe  the  fyrste  tale  of  the  Emperasse ; " 
before  nine  others,  there  is  substituted  for  this  a  couplet  indi- 
cating the  contents  of  the  story  which  follows,  as  e.  g.,  canis 

(695-6) : 

*  Here  begynnythe  the  tale  of  a  knyght 
That  cylde  hys  grehounde  with  unryght.' 

The  stories  avis,  vidua,  Roma,  inclusa,  and  vaticinium  have 
nothing  corresponding  to  this.  The  dialect  is  Kentish,  though 
less  strongly  marked  than  in  Ar.3  No  edition  of  E  has  yet 
appeared.  An  extract,  including  11.  2251-2358,  accompanies 
the  monograph  of  Petras,  "Anhang,"  p.  54  f. 

B.— MS.  No.  354  of  Balliol  College  Library,  Oxford,— 
denoted  as  -B.4  Ff.  18a-54b.  Paper,  belonging  to  the  early 

pres.  part,  (except  buland :  blynd,  1589-90)  ends  in  -ng,  the  verb  is  Southern 
(save  cryen:  mene,  2556-7,  where  we  have  a  Midland  form),  the  past  part, 
preserves,  as  a  rule,  the  prefix,  and  rejects  (in  the  case  of  the  strong  verb) 
the  ending,  etc.  Within  the  line,  however,  there  are  occasional  Northern 
forms,  particularly  of  the  pres.  part.,  as  buland)  1588,  1591,  1599,  brynand, 
1922 ;  but  these  are  by  no  means  the  rule,  the  Southern  form  being  in 
general  preserved  as  well  within  the  line  as  in  the  rime. 

1  For  a  general  description  of  this  manuscript,  see  Ward's  Catalogue,  u, 
p.  218  f. 

8See  the  sixth  article:  "Gregory  Skinner's  Chronicle  of  the  Mayors  of 
London,  ending  in  1469,"  ff.  113-122b. 

'The  usual  development  of  A.  S.  y  is  e,  or  the  e-quality, — see  the  rimes 
of  11.  245-6,  577-8,  783-4,  845-6,  1323-4,  1545-6,  1799-1800,  1821-1822; 
but  occasionally  y, — cf.  kynne:  lynne  (O.N.  linna),  1317-8  and  wynne:  syne, 
1635-6.  The  evidence  is  otherwise  strongly  indicative  of  a  Southern  scribe, 
though  a  few  Northern  forms  are  borne  out  by  the  rime ;  cf.  hondys :  stondys 
(3d  sing.),  439-40,  also  kynge:  yonge,  93-4,  and  yonge:  connynge,  3581-2. 

4  The  existence  of  this  version  of  the  Seven  Sages  was  first  pointed  out  by 
Varnhagen,  in  his  Eine  Ital.  Prosav.  d.  Sieben  Weisen,  Berlin,  1881,  p.  xi ; 
see  in  the  same  connection  his  review  of  Petras,  Eng.  Stud.,  x,  p.  279  f. 


40  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

sixteenth  century.1  In  single  columns ;  irregular  in  capitali- 
zation. Described  in  Coxe's  Catalogus,  i,  p.  110,  as  in  the 
hand  of  John  Hyde.  The  text  is  complete,  containing  3708 
lines.  The  first  rubric,  which  contains  the  title,  reads  as 
follows :  "  Here  begynneth  ]?e  prologes  of  the  VII.  sagis  or 
vii.  wise  masters  which  were  named  as  here-after  ffollowing." 
Each  story  has  a  heading  or  title,  as  e.  g.y  arbor :  "  The 
empresse  tale  off  the  pynote  tree."  At  the  end  of  the  text 
stands  the  colophon  :  "  Thus  endith  of  the  vii.  sages  of  Rome, 
which  was  drawen  owt  of  crownycles  and  owt  of  wrytyng  of 
old  men,  and  many  a  notable  tale  is  ther-in,  as  ys  beffore 
sayde.  Quod  Kichard  Hill."  This  manuscript  contains  very 
few  abbreviations,  and  the  language  is  much  modernized.  In 
line  1761  :  "On  the  ffall  suche  as  fell  to  a  old  man  by  his 
wif,"  we  have  two  lines  in  one.  The  rime  is,  if  anything, 
slightly  better  than  in  A,  Ar,  and  E,  but  is,  nevertheless, 
occasionally  imperfect,  cf.  visage :  noyse,  459-60;  assonance, 
as  in  all  other  related  M.  E.  texts,  abounds ;  often  four  lines 
rime  together,  and  occasionally  six,  cf.  2583-8.  The  dialect 
is  Southern.2  No  edition  of  the  text  has  yet  appeared,  but 
the  E.  E.  T.  S.  has  for  some  time  been  advertising  the  entire 
manuscript  as  needing  editing. 

P.— MS.  Ff,  n,  38  (formerly  marked  More  690)  of  the 
Cambridge  University  Library, — denoted  as  F.s  Ff.  134a- 
156d.  Paper,  dating  from  about  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth 
century.  Written  in  double  columns  of  about  40  11.  to  the 
column.  Handwriting  uniform  ;  irregular  as  to  capitaliza- 
tion, though  most  lines  begin  with  a  capital.  The  beginnings 
of  stories  indicated  merely  by  large  initial  capitals  in  red. 

1Cf.  Art.  31,  "Memoranda  of  Richard  Hill,"  and  Art.  98,  "Names  of 
Mayors  (of  London)." 

'Southern  forms  are  sustained  by  the  rime  almost  without  exception. 
A.  S.  y  is  represented  by  both  y  and  e,  in  about  equal  proportion ;  the  rimes 
in  e  are  probably  to  be  explained,  however,  as  reminiscences  of  a  Kentish 
original. 

3  Cf.  Halliwell,  Thornton  Romances,  Camden  Society,  vol.  xxx,  p.  xxxvi  f., 
and  the  Cambridge  Univ.  Lib.  Catalogue  of  xss.,  II,  p.  408. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  41 

The  text  is  fragmentary ;  ff.  141  and  144  (or  less  than  400 
11.)  have  been  lost,  and  fol.  135  is  in  a  mutilated  condition;1 
2555  11.  remain.  Criteria  for  determining  the  dialect  are  not 
abundant,  as  the  manuscript  is  late  and  the  forms  are  some- 
what mixed ;  but  the  bulk  of  the  evidence  favors  a  Southern 
dialect.2  The  text  has  not  been  edited,  although,  in  view 
of  its  uniqueness,  it  is  not  uninteresting,  and  in  its  last  four 
stories  is  of  considerable  value.  Extracts  are  given  by  Halli- 
well,  Thornton  Romances,  p.  XLIII  f.,  Wright,  The  Seven  Sages, 
p.  LXX  f.,  and  Petras,  /.  c.,  p.  60  f. 

C. — MS.  Cotton  Galba  E,  ix,  of  the  British  Museum, — 
denoted  as  C.3  Ff.  25b-48b.  Vellum ;  in  double  columns,  with 
initials  in  blue  and  red,  and  in  a  very  plain  hand  of  the  first 
third  of  the  fifteenth  century.  Complete,  in  4328  11.  Bearing 
the  title  pe  Proces  of  ])e  Seuyn  Sages.  Each  prolog  and  each 
story  marked  off  by  rubrics  :  in  the  case  of  the  former,  such 
as  "  Here  bigins  ]?e  fyrst  proces  "  (called  "  prolong  "  after  the 
fourth  story),  with  the  latter,  "  Here  bygins  j?e  first  tale  of 
J>e  whyfe,"  etc.,  the  number  being  given  in  each  instance, 
and,  in  the  case  of  the  masters'  stories,  their  names  also. 
The  dialect  is  Northern.  Both  text  and  "metre  are  very 
pure ; 4  the  rime,  especially,  stands  in  marked  contrast  to  the 
Southern  versions,  being  almost  free  of  assonance  and  the  im- 

1  The  Cambridge  Catalogue  fails  to  specify  the  leaves  which  have  been  lost. 
Petras  (p.  8)  and  others  go  to  the  other  extreme  in  asserting  that  the  text 
is  very  incomplete. 

*  A.  S.  a  >  o,  and  the  forms  of  the  verb,  with  the  exception  of  the  strong 
past  part.,  where  -en  is  the  usual  ending,  are  Southern.  The  scribe,  how- 
ever, probably  belonged  rather  to  the  middle  or  western  South  than  to 
Kent,  or  its  neighborhood ;  cf.  the  rimes  in  y  where  the  w-quality  prevails : 
tyme :  kynne,  813-4 ;  wytte :  pytte,  845-6 ;  hym :  kynne,  871-2 ;  1348-9,  1636-7, 
etc.  The  rimes  bedd:  hydd,  200-1,  and  kende:  sende,  1890-1,  are  probably 
to  be  traced  to  the  Kentish  original. 

3Cf.  Ward's  Catalogue,  n,  p.  213  f.,  for  a  general  description  of  this  manu- 
script. 

4  There  are  very  few  verses  that  are  too  short  (among  these  are  84,  443, 
911,  1868,  1901,  1918,  2973),  and  almost  none  that  are  too  full  (cf.  843). 
Among  the  few  inexact  rimes  are  sages:  message,  355-6 ;  brend:  assent,  2321- 
2;  hew:  mowe,  2842-3. 


42  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

perfections  in  which  the  latter  abound.  No  complete  edition 
of  C  has  so  far  appeared;  but  lines  1-134  and  3108-4328 
are  printed  in  Weber,  Metr.  Rom.,  m,  pp.  1  f.  and  108  f., 
where  this  text  has  been  employed  to  supplement  A.  The 
story  avis,  comprising  lines  2411-2548,  appears  in  the  "An- 
hang  "  to  Petras's  monograph,  p.  56  f.1 

D. — MS.  Dd,  I,  17  of  the  Cambridge  University  Library, 
—cited  as  D.2  Ff.  54a,  col.  1— 63a,  col.  3.  Parchment;  in 
treble  columns;  appears  to  belong  to  the  end  of  the  fourteenth 
century.3  Textually  very  imperfect,  and  plainly  the  work  of 
a  careless  scribe.  Thirteen  lines  have  apparently  been  lost, — 
after  1312,  1417,  1696,  1719,  2094,  2293,  2695,  2840,  2960, 
3057,  3134,  3365,  3395.  Irregularities  in  rime  are  numerous, 
but  in  most  cases  easily  emended.4  The  dialect  is  southeast 
Midland,  with  an  intermixture  of  Northern  forms.5  The 
text  has  been  edited  by  Wright  (Percy  Society  for  1845,  vol. 
xvi,  pp.  1-118).  For  a  collation  of  this  edition  with  the 
manuscript,  see  Kolbing  in  Englische  Studien,  vi,  p.  448  f. 
An  analysis  of  the  romance  on  the  basis  of  this  text  appears 
in  Clouston's  Book  of  Sindibdd,  p.  327  f. 

As. — MS.  Asloan,  in  the  possession  of  Lord  Talbot  de 
Malahide,  Malahide  Castle,  Ireland, — denoted  by  As.  For  a 
general  description  of  the  manuscript  (quoted  from  Chalmers), 

*An  edition  of  this  manuscript  by  the  lamented  Dr.  Robert  Morris  was 
announced  by  the  E.  E.  T.  S.  many  years  ago ;  and  an  editor  was  advertised 
for  for  some  time  after  Dr.  Morris's  death,  but  in  the  recent  issues  of  the 
publications  this  advertisement  no  longer  appears.  It  is  the  purpose  of 
the  present  writer  to  prepare  a  critical  edition  of  this  text  within  the  near 
future. 

*  For  a  general  description  of  this  manuscript,  see  the  Cambridge  Cata- 
logue, I,  p.  15  f.;  Skeat,  Publications  of  E.  E.  T.  S.,  vol.  xxxviu,  p.  xxm  f.; 
and  Halliwell,  Manuscript  Rarities  of  Cambridge,  p.  3. 

"Morsbach,  for  some  unknown  reason,  would  place  it  earlier,  "1300?"; 
see  his  M .  E.  Qrammatik,  p.  9. 

4  Lines  337-9  may  be  explained  as  a  triplet,  but  it  is  better  to  suppose 
that  a  verse  has  been  lost.  A  more  probable  example  of  the  triplet  in 
M.  E.  is  found  in  A,  915-7. 

6 See  Skeat,  E.  E.  T.  S.,  vol.  xxxvni,  p.  xxv,  and  Brandl,  in  PauPs 
Grundriss,  n,  1,  p.  635. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  43 

see  Schipper's  Poems  of  Dunbar,  Vienna,  1891,  Pt.  1,  p.  5  f.1 
The  text  of  the  Seven  Sages  occupies  ff.  167-209,  and  bears 
the  title  The  Buke  of  the  sevyne  Sagis.  According  to  Laing2  the 
text  is  incomplete,  extending  to  only  about  2800  lines,  and  the 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  stories  are  wanting  entirely.  It  begins, 

'Ane  Empriour  in  tymes  bygone 
In  Rome  callit  Dioclesiane — ' 

and  ends, 

'  Syne  geld  till  heuyn  and  sa  do  we 
Sayis  all  Amen  for  cherite.' 

Its  dialect  is  Scottish.3  A  complete  transcript,  made  by  D. 
Laing  in  1826,  exists  in  the  University  Library,  Edinburgh. 
An  edition,  long  ago  promised  by  Varnhagen,  is  expected  to 
appear  shortly  in  the  Scottish  Text  Society  Publications. 

2.   Interrelation  of  the  Middle  English  Versions. 

With  regard  to  the  relationship  of  the  Middle  English 
versions  there  has  been  a  variety  of  opinions,  and,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  French  versions,  there  has  existed  no  little  ignor- 
ance and  error.  The  general  tendency  has  been  to  consider 
any  and  all  versions  of  the  M.  E.  period  independent  trans- 
lations from  the  French.  This  has  been  nowhere  better 
demonstrated  than  in  Petras's  dissertation,  where  it  has  been 
boldly  maintained  that  at  least  four  of  the  M.  E.  versions 
(A,  Cj  Fj  D)  are  unrelated  save  through  a  common  foreign 
original.  And  while  others  have  been  more  conservative 
than  Petras,  the  prevailing  opinion  seems  to  have  been  that  a 
majority  at  least  of  the  M.  E.  group  are  independent  of  each 
other.  It  will  be  one  of  the  results  of  this  study,  however,  it 
is  believed,  to  show  that  seven  of  the  eight  M.  E.  versions 

*A  further  description,  together  with  an  extract  containing  the  story  avis, 
has  recently  appeared  in  Englische  Studitn  (xxv,  p.  321  f.),  through  the 
kindness  of  Prof.  Varnhagen. 

*The  Seven  Sages  in  Scottish  Metre  (Holland),  Edinburgh,  1837,  p.  xir. 

3 Chalmers  says  of  it:  "Evidently  written  by  a  Scotish  versifier  in  the 
reign  of  James  IV,  as  a  number  of  Scotish  terms  occur,  which  would  not 
have  been  introduced  by  a  Scotish  transcriber  of  an  English  work." 


44  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

are  ultimately  related  through  a  common  M.  E.  parent  ver- 
sion (x),  and  it  is  held  not  improbable  that  the  eighth  (As) 
is  also  thus  related  to  x. 

All  the  M.  E.  versions,  however,  do  not  represent  the  same 
line  of  tradition.  One  of  the  texts,  Z),  as  later  shown,  is  a 
development  from  #,  independent  of  the  rest  of  the  M.  E. 
group,  and  Varnhagen  holds  that  As  was  made  directly  from 
the  Old  French.  The  remaining  versions  fall  together  into 
one  connected  group,  all  related  through  a  common  original 
(y),  which  goes  back  to  x,  but  which  was  not  identical  with 
it.  This  group  will  be  designated  as  Y. 

The  close  relationship  of  the  texts  which  constitute  this 
group  Y  is  confirmed  by  evidence  from  all  sides,  but  it  can  be 
no  more  effectively  illustrated  than  by  a  comparative  table  of 
lines.  For  this  purpose  a  line-for-line  comparison  of  the 
section  which  the  five  most  important  texts  of  this  group  (A, 
Ar,  E,  B,  C)  have  in  common  has  been  made,  the  comparison 
being  restricted  to  identical  lines  and  similar  rimes,  with  the 
following  results  :l 

(1)  A  =  1816  11.  (4)  B  =  1931  11. 

Total  II.        Ident.  II.      Sim.  rimes.  Total  II.        Idenl.  II.        Sim.  rimes. 

Ar 1916  234  722       A 1816  154  537 

E. 1843  125  636  4r...l916  137  646 

B 1934  154  537  E....  .1843  83  558 

C 2067  26  — 2       C 2067  13  281 

(2)  Ar  =  1916  11.  (5)  C=  2067  11. 

A 1816  234  722                  A 1816  26  — « 

E. 1843  169  746  ^r...l916  19  413 

B 1931  137  646                  E 1843  11  352 

C 2067  19  413                  B 1931  13  281 

(3)  E=  1843  11. 

A 1816  125  636 

Ar 1916  169  746 

B 1931  83  558 

C 2067  11  352 

1  An  illustration  of  the  method  by  which  these  figures  have  been  arrived 
at  may  be  found  in  the  appendix  to  this  study.  F,  owing  to  special  features 
which  are  discussed  below,  is  excluded  from  this  comparison. 

'Petras,  p.  11,  finds  A  and  (7,  the  entire  texts  being  compared,  to  have 
1096  similar  rimes. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES. 


45 


But  this  comparison,  while  valuable  as  far  as  it  goes,  serves 
only  to  show  a  connection  between  the  texts  compared ;  it 
does  not  suffice  to  show  the  nature  of  this  connection. 
Accordingly,  in  addition  to  this,  a  comparison  of  motive  or 
incident — as  a  safer  basis  for  classification — has  been  made 
for  the  entire  Middle  English  group ;  and  it  is  by  means  of 
this,  in  the  main,  that  our  results  as  to  the  interrelation  of  the 
M.  E.  versions  have  been  reached.  The  limits  of  this  publi- 
cation, however,  preclude  the  submitting  this  except  in  part, 
so  that  only  the  tabulation  for  the  story  vidua  (Matron  of 
JEphesus)  appears  here. 


(1)  A  certain  knight  had  a 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

F 

D 

A*t  80,   "  un 

wife.    (A,  Ar,  B,  D  state 

vicomte   en 

that  he  was  a  sheriff.) 

Loherainne." 

(2)  They  loved  each  other 

A 

(Ar) 

E 

B 

C 

F 

A* 

exceedingly.     (Ar    only 
relates  that  he  loved  her. 

In  F,  he  will  not  permit 

her  to  go   half  a  mile 

from   him,  "  neither  to 

church  nor  to  cheping.") 

(3)  A   new   sharp   knife   is 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

A* 

given  them. 

(4)  While  playing  with  this, 

{in    the 

til  11  111  L) 

in    the 

E 

B 

womb. 

A 

Ar 

A*,  "el 

(C,  in  the  finger;  Ft  in 

pouce." 

the   hand  ;    D  is  silent 

as  to  part.    F  adds  that 

the  wife  was  paring  a 

pear.) 

(5)  For  dole  he  dies  on  the 

A 

Ar 

E 

C 

D 

A* 

morrow.     (F  adds  that 

he  asks  for  a  priest  be- 

fore he  dies.) 

(6)  This  was  great  folly. 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

A* 

46 


KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 


(7)  He    was    richly    buried 

A 

Ar 

E 

(*) 

C 

W 

A* 

on  the  morrow.   (JB  does 

not  specify  that  it  was 

on  the  morrow.    E,  B,  C 

state    that    this    occurs 

after    a    mass.    D  adds 

that  the  place  of  burial 

was    outside    the    city, 

since  there  were  objec- 

tions to  his  being  buried 

within  the  city.) 

(8)  The  wife  refuses  to  leave 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

F 

D 

A* 

the  grave. 

(9)  Her  friends  try  to  com- 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

D 

A*,  "ses  lig. 

fort  her. 

nages." 

(10)  They  suggest  that  she  is 

A 

Ar 

B 

C 

(4*),"jueneet 

young,  and  may  marry 
again,    and    beget   chil- 

bele."   (No 
mention   of 

dren. 

marry  ing  in 

A*t  but  see 

K  and   the 

D'Ancona 

text.) 

(11)  She  rejects  their  sugges- 

A 

Ar 

B 

C 

A*  SI. 

tions,  assuring  them  that 

she  will  die  on  his  grave. 

• 

They  are  sorry. 

(12)  They    make   for   her   a 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

A*,  "une 

"logge"  on  the  grave. 

loge." 

(13)  Also,    a    fire.     (D,    she 

A 

Ar 

E 

C 

(D} 

A* 

makes  the  fire   herself. 

An    addition    of   D    is 

that  she  sends  for  her 

\ 

clothes.) 

(14)  Her  friends  leave  her; 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

D 

\A* 

she  moans. 

(15)  On  the  same  day  three 

A 

Ar 

(E) 

(B) 

C 

(F) 

D 

A*,  "&  celui 

thieves  have  been  taken. 

jour." 

(E,  on  a  day  before  ;  £, 

silent;  F,  one  thief.) 

(16)  They  were  knights  who 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

A* 

had  wasted  the  country, 

and  had  been  hanged  as 

soon  as  captured. 

THE   SEVEN   SAGES. 


47 


(17)  A  certain  knight  was  to 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

F 

D 

-<4*,"un  chev- 

guard the  bodies  for  the 

alier  —  la 

first  night.    (A  adds  that 

I>ivmiere 

he  was  to  watch  for  three 

nuit." 

nights.) 

(18)  Becoming  cold,  he  spies 
the  fire  in  the  "  church- 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

F 

D 

A*,  "  cime- 

haw,"  goes  thither,  and 

finds  the  lady. 

(19)  He  asks  to  be  let  in. 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

F 

,4*82. 

(20)  She  refuses  his  request. 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

A* 

In  A  she  swears  by  St. 

(John,—  in  Ar,  E,  B,  by 

"  St.  Austyn.") 

(21)  He  assures  her  that  he 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

A*  (K  3768, 

will   do    her   no    harm, 

"Je  suiGe- 

and  that  he  is  a  knight. 

rart    le    fil 

Guion;" 

also  D*  37.) 

(22)  She    lets    him    in  ;    he 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

F 

D 

A* 

warms  by  the  fire.     (In 

D  there  is  no  mention 

of    the    wife's    refusing 

to  permit  the  knight  to 

enter.) 

(23)  He     sees    her    making 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

A* 

dole,  and  tells  her  she 

is  foolish  to  do  so,  —  that 

she  may  yet  marry  some 

knight.   She  replies  that 
he  was  so  kind  that  she 

may  not  love  any  other. 

(D  adds  that  she  begins 

to  love  him  when  she 

finds  him  to  be  a  knight  ; 

and  that   he   lies  with 

her.) 

(24)  By  and  by  he  thinks  of 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

(A*} 

his  charge. 

(25)  And    fearing    guile,    he 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

F 

D 

^4*83. 

rides  fast  to  the  gallows, 

only  to  find  one  of  the 
bodies  stolen.   (^4,  Ar,  E, 

B,  he  rides  on  a  foal.  ) 

48 


KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 


(26)  He  fears  he  will  lose  his 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

D 

A* 

advancement   if   unable 

to  recover  the  body. 

(27)  Bethinks    himself    that 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

A*  (the  order 

"wirnmen  cou>e  red." 

of  26-7   re- 

versed in  the 

French.) 

(28)  So  going  to  the  widow, 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

F 

D 

A*    (cf.    K, 

he  asks  counsel  of  her. 

3817). 

(29)  She  agrees  to  help  him  if 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

F 

A* 

he  will  marry  her.     (B, 
E,  she  proposes  only  that 

he    be    her   "leman,"— 

he  suggests  matrimony. 

In  C,  she  asks  if  he  has 

a  wife.  ) 

(30)  This  being  agreed  to,  she 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

F 

D 

A* 

advises  that  they  dig  up 
the  body  of  her  husband, 

which  is  done. 

(31)  But   the  knight  objects 

A 

Ar 

E 

C 

F 

A* 

to  hanging  up  the  body. 

(32)  The   lady   puts    a   rope 
round  the  neck   of  the 

A 

Ar 

(E) 

B 

C 

F 

A* 

corpse.     (E,  the  knight 

does  it.) 

(33)  She  draws  the  body  up, 

A 

Ar 

C 

F 

A* 

and  hangs  it  fast. 

(34)  The  knight  is  aghast  at 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

this. 

(35)  The  knight  recalls  that 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

F 

D 

A*  84,  "  une 

the  thief  had  a  wound  in 

plaie  en  la 

his  head,  and  fears  that 

teste." 

the  "  guile  may  be  per- 
ceived" unleas  the  nus- 

band  have  a  similar  one; 

this  the  wife  advises  him 

to  make  with  his  sword. 

(36)  He  declines  to  do  it. 

A 

Ar 

E 

W 

(C) 

D 

(37)  She  asks  for  his  sword, 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

0 

F 

A* 

proposing  to  do  it  herself. 

THE   SEVEN   SAGES. 


49 


(38)  She  smites  with  all  her 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

(C) 

F 

D 

A* 

strength      "  amid      the 

brayn."      (In     Z>,     she 

wounds     him     with     a 

knife.) 

(39)  The  knight  now  knows 

A 

AT 

E 

B 

C 

her  to  be  false. 

(40)  He  remembers  that  the 

A 

AT 

E 

B 

c 

(F) 

(D) 

A* 

thiefs     fore-teeth     had 

been    broken    out.     (Z>, 

F,    in    agreement    with 

A*t  K,  have  two  teeth; 

but  see  D*  39,  toutes  les 

dens.) 

(41)  She  proposes  that  he  dis- 
figure her  husband  in  like 

A 

AT 

C 

D 

(A*) 

manner,  but  he  refuses. 

(42)  She  does  it  herself  with 

A 

AT 

E 

B 

c 

F 

D 

A* 

a  stone.     (In  A,  Ar,  E, 

B,  F,  she  knocks  out  all 

his  teeth  ;  in  Z),  only  two. 

F  inserts   here   another 

disfiguration  —  the  loss  of 

two  fingers.    In  D,  the 

body  is  not  hung  up  till 

after  the  mutilation.  ) 

(43)  The  wife  states  that  she 

A 

AT 

E 

B 

c 

F 

(A*) 

has  now  won   his  love, 

which  he  denies,  adding 

that  he  would  marry  her 

for  no  treasure,  lest  she 

serve    him    as   she   has 

served  her  lord. 

(44)  The  sage  wishes  Diocle- 

A 

AT 

E 

B 

c 

F 

D 

A*  85. 

tian  such  fortune  if  he  do 

not  respite  the  prince. 

(45)  He  asks  that  judgment 

A 

AT 

(E) 

B 

c 

A* 

be    suspended    till    the 

morrow,  when  the  prince 

will  speak  for  himself. 

(46)  The  emperor  agrees  to 

A 

AT 

B 

c 

D 

A* 

this,  and  the  crowds  dis- 

perse. 

4 

50 


KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 


(47)  The    emperor    goes    to 

A 

Ar 

E 

E 

C 

F 

D 

A* 

his  bower;  the  empress 

"  lours  "  on  him.    (A,  Ar 

add  that  his  "sergeants 

make  solace  "  with  him.) 

(48)  The  emperor  is  brought 

A 

AT 

abed  with  riche  baudekines. 

(49)  The  empress  is  silent  till 

A 

Ar 

E 

B 

C 

D 

the  morrow. 

, 

(50)  When  she  asks  if  he  has 

A 

(Ar} 

E 

B 

C 

(D) 

A*,  K  2347, 

heard  the  "geste,"  etc., 

"  feste    aus 

why  men  made  a  feast  of 

fox." 

fool*.1    (Ar,  "HowKome 

was  in  great  dread."     D 

likewise  makes  no  men- 

tion of  the  feast  of  fools.) 

A. — A  is  naturally  the  most  valuable  of  all  Middle  Eng- 
lish versions,  since  it  is  found  in  the  oldest  manuscript  which 
has  come  down  to  us,  and  doubtless  in  many  respects  best 
preserves  the  original.  In  view  of  its  age  one  would  at  least 
hope  to  find  in  it  either  the  parent  English  text  or  the  closest 
representative  of  it,  but  a  close  collation  with  the  remaining 
manuscripts  shows  that  it  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 
It  is  not  even  a  link  in  any  one  of  the  chains  of  development. 
This  is  established  by  the  fact  that  A  often  abridges  where  all 
the  other  texts  of  Fare  true  to  the  French.2 

There  are,  however,  some  features  in  which  A  appears  to 
reflect  the  original  more  faithfully  than  any  other  member 
of  its  group.  Thus,  we  find  in  A  666,  "Deu  vous  doint 
bonjour"  =  i  15,  "  Diex  yos  doint  bon  jor,"  where  none 
approximate  A  save  B  652,  "And  sayde,  deux  vous  garde 
bonjour;"  or,  in  A  743,  "The  levedi  stod  in  pount  tournis"= 

1  For  the  origin  of  this  feature,  see  Paris,  Romania,  iv,  128. 

*This  phenomenon  does  not  seem  to  be  confined  to  our  text,  but  appears 
also  in  other  poems  of  the  Auchinleck  MS.,  as  has  been  already  observed 
by  Kolbing ;  cf.  his  Arthour  and  Merlin,  iv,  p.  CLIII,  and  his  Bevis  of  Ham- 
loun,  E.  E.  T.  S.,  Ex.  Ser.,  LXV,  p.  XLI. 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  51 

L  17,  "sur  le  pont  torneiz,"  where  C  reads  "on  a  vice,"  and  Ey 
B,  "  in  the  castle  on  high."  And  there  are  sundry  details  of 
the  original  which  A  reproduces  in  common  with  only  one 
other  text;  but  these  are  easily  explained  by  the  circumstance 
of  A's  closer  proximity  in  time  to  the  parent  text,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  it  has  suffered  less  from  the  ravages  of  time,  or 
at  the  hand  of  the  modernizer,  than  have  some  of  the  later  texts. 

The  abridgments  of  the  original  which  characterize  A  fall 
chiefly  in  the  conclusions  of  certain  stories.  In  fact  it  is  a 
noticeable  feature — due  probably  to  the  desire  to  avoid  repeti- 
tion— that  it  is  almost  entirely  in  the  'epilogaciouns'  (as  some 
of  the  H- texts  name  them)  that  A  has  made  any  serious  altera- 
tions, while  there  is  a  very  marked  agreement,  and  only 
occasional  freedom,  exhibited  in  the  body  of  its  stories. 

This  tendency  to  abridge  is  manifest  throughout  the  ^4 -text. 
It  is  most  violent,  however,  in  the  stories  aper,  gaza,  Virgilius, 
and  avis.  Chief  among  the  passages  in  other  versions  which 
find  nothing  corresponding  in  A,  are  the  following :  (1)  aper, 
Ar,  1-20  =  E  949-968  =  B  933-948  =  C  1041-1058  = 
L,  p.  25  ;  (2)  Virgilius,  Ar  1280-1288  =  E  2204-2212  =  B 
2244-2252  =  C  2370-2376  =  L,  p.  55 ;  (3)  avis,  Ar  1433- 
1446  =  E  2367-2372  =  B  2401-2414  =  L,  p.  59. 

There  is,  in  addition  to  these,  in  the  conclusion  of  gaza,  a 
fourth  passage  which  A  abridges  radically,  and  which,  since  it 
is  a  comparatively  close  paraphrase  of  the  Old  French,  may 
be  cited  here  as  giving  a  graphic  illustration  of  this  pecu- 
liarity of  A9  and,  at  the  same  time,  as  showing  once  for  all 
its  unoriginality,  and  its  subordinate  importance  in  settling 
the  question  of  the  interrelation  of  the  English  versions. 
This  passage  is,  in  Ar,  11.  456-479 ;  the  corresponding  lines 
are,  in  E  1401-1426,  B  1393-1420,  and  C  1472-1490.  Cita- 
tion is  made  from  Ar  as  best  representing  the  lost  text  Y. 

Ar  456  '  Loude  >ei  gonne  on  hym  to  crye,  L  34.  '  Chascun  li  escria : 

And  saide,  lentylyon  kybe  J>y  mastry,     Ha!  mestre,  or  pansez  de 
Helpe  by  disciple  at  Ms  nede.  vostre  deciple.' 

pe  master  a-lygt  \>o  of  his  stede,  .  .  .  '  et  descent  de  son 

cheval.' 


52 


KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 


460     And  grete  be  Emperowr  on  his  kne. 
Unnebe  wold  he  hym  see. 
pe  Emperour  saide,  bou  fals  man, 
Be  hym  bat  al  men-kynde  wan, 
pou  art  fekell  and  fatour, 

465     Losenger  and  eke  traytowr. 
A,  why  syr  leue  lord  ? 
So  nas  I  neuer,  saue  by  word. 
Syr,  by  gentyll  wyue  late  us  her, 
And  vfith  goddes  helpe  we  schull  us 
skor. 

470    I  sow  toke  my  son  to  loke 

And  for  to  tech  hym  on  boke, 
And  bou  first  bygan  to  tech, 
By-nome  his  tong  and  his  spech, 
And  taugt  hym  sith  with  mor  stryf, 

475    Ffor  to  nyme  forth  my  wyf. 
ge  schull  wite  beir-of  nougt ; 
Bot  when  he  is  to  debe  brougt, 
I  schull  dampne  be  and  by  feren 

479    To  drawe  and  honge  by  be  swyren.' 


'. . .  et  s'en  vient  devant 
1'emperdeur,  si  le  salue :  .  . 
Li  empereres  respont  au 
salu  qui  li  a  dit:  Ja  dex 
ne  vos  beneie.' 

'Avoi !  fet  messires  Lan- 
tules,  pourcoi  dites  vos  ce? 

'  Ge  le  vos  dirai,  fait  li 
empereres,  je  vos  avoie 
baillie  mon  fil  &  aprendre 
et  a  endoctriner,  et  la  pre- 
miere doctrine  que  li  avez 
faite,  si  est  que  vos  li  avez 
la  parole  tolue ;  1'autre  qui 
veult  prendre  ma  fame  a 
force.  Mes  ja  Dex  ne  vos 
en  doint  joir ;  et  bien  sa- 
chiez  que  tantost  comme 
il  sera  morz,  vos  morroiz 
apres,  et  seroiz  destruit 
ensement.' 


As  against  this  A  has  only  the  following  lines  (1387-92) : 

'And  th'  emperour  wel  sone  he  fond : 
He  gret  him  faire,  ich  understond.  (=  Ar  460) 
Th'  emperour  saide,  so  God  me  spede,  (=  AT  462) 
Traitour,  the  schal  be  quit  thi  mede ! 
For  mi  sones  mislerning, 
Ye  schulle  habbe  evil  ending ! ' 

Other  less  important  omissions  occur  in  the  conclusions  to 
aper  and  puteus :  aper — the  people  invoke  the  master  to  help 
his  disciple  (L  25,  C  1064,  E,  J5);  puteus — the  empress 
threatens,  on  learning  of  the  respite  of  the  prince,  to  leave  on 
the  morrow.  Ar  624-5,  "And  saide  scho  wold  away  at 
morowe.  Nai  dame,  he  saide,  jef  God  it  wyll.  .  .  ."  =  L  38, 
"je  m'en  irai  le  matin.  Non  ferois,  dame  .  .  .  .  se  dieux 
plest."  The  same  incident  is  omitted  in  the  J.-text  of  avis ; 
cf.  L  59,  Ar  1440-1. 

In  the  body  of  the  stories,  as  already  observed,  this  tendency 
is  not  nearly  so  marked.  There  is  in  fact  no  significant 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  53 

feature  of  the  stories  of  the  original  which  has  been  preserved  ' 
in  any  other  English  version  that  does  not  appear  also  in  A. 
The  nearest  approaches  to  such  are  the  following,  both  from 
the  story  Roma:  (1)  An  old  wise  man  (==  A*  86,  "  un  home 
viel  et  ancien.  .  f  .")  makes  the  proposition  that  the  city  be  put 
in  charge  of  seven  sages,  a  bit  of  detail  which  is  omitted  by  no 
other  English  version ;  (2)  after  these  sages  have  kept  the 
city  for  a  month,  the  food  supply  is  exhausted ;  cf.  Ar,  E,  B, 
C,  F,  and  A*  86,  "  vitaille  failli  a  ceuls."  In  addition  to 
these  there  are  certain  other  minor  details  in  which  one  or 
more  of  the  related  English  versions  preserve  the  French 
more  closely.  For  example,  in  medicus  (A  1149),  Ypocras 
pierces  the  ton  in  1000  places,  as  against  Ar  (208),  E,  B,  F, 
which  agree  with  L  28,  -c-  broches.  Likewise  in  Virgilius, 
A  (1977-8)  translates  the  O.  F.  "arc  de  coivre  et  une  sajete, 
bien  entesse "  (L  50)  as  "  arblast  ....  and  quarel  taisand," 
while  the  remaining  members  of  group  ^render  more  literally 
bow  and  arrow;  in  sapientes,  C,  Ar,  E,  B  have  the  masters 
ask  Merlin  his  name,  in  agreement  with  L  60,  "  et  li  demand- 
fcrent  commant  il  avoit  a  non,"  where  A  abridges ;  to  which 
add  that  A  makes  no  mention  of  the  divine  service  at  the 
burial  of  the  husband  in  vidua,  where  E,  B,  C,  fall  in  with 
A*  80,  and  that  in  the  same  story,  A  (2618)  has  the  knight 
come  to  the  gallows  to  watch  three  nights,  while  Ar,  E,  B,  C 
fall  together  in  their  adherence  to  the  French — A*  81,  "  la 
premiere  nuit,"  and  we  have  the  sum  of  A's  noteworthy 
variations  within  the  body  of  its  stories. 

Additions  in  A  are  even  less  numerous.  An  occasional 
extra  couplet  (so  far  as  the  evidence  of  the  remaining  English 
versions  goes)  now  and  then  crops  out,  as  e.  g.,  645-8,  and  we 
also  find  here  and  there  additional  details,  such  as  (1)  in  Vlr- 
gilius,  where  the  poor,  in  addition  to  warming  themselves  at 
the  magician's  wonderful  fire,  are  represented  as  also  prepar- 
ing their  food  by  it  (A  1973);  and  as  (2)  in  sapientes,  Herod 
is  described  as  the  richest  man  in  Christendom  (A  2340), — 
neither  of  which  appears  in  any  other  text,  whether  English 


54  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

or  Romance.  But  such  additions  are  very  few  in  number, 
and,  in  any  case,  too  insignificant  to  play  a  prominent  part  in 
solving  the  problem  in  hand.  They  are,  nevertheless,  con- 
firmatory of  the  evidence  already  adduced,  with  which  they 
unite  in  demonstrating  conclusively  the  unorjginality  of  A. 

We  have,  then,  in  A  a  secondary  development  from  the 
lost  y.  It  cannot  have  been  based  on  any  manuscript  of  which 
any  other  text  of  Y  is  a  close  transcript,  since  it  preserves 
the  original  in  some  places  more  faithfully  than  any  other 
M.  E.  text.  On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  have  been  the 
source  of  any  of  the  known  M.  E.  manuscripts,  since  all  these 
preserve  features  of  the  French  which  A  omits. 

Ar. — Nearest  to  A  stands  the  fragmentary  text  from  MS. 
Arundel  140.  This  version,  while  most  important  as  repre- 
senting in  all  probability  the  lost  y  more  closely  than  any 
other  known  text,  has  been  singularly  neglected  by  former 
investigators.  Petras  makes  no  mention  of  it,  whence  we 
draw  the  inference  that  he  was  unacquainted  with  it.  And 
apparently  the  only  notice  which  has  been  accorded  it,  beyond 
Varnhagen's  several  references  to  it,1  is  that  of  Ward  in  his 
Catalogue  of  Romances  (u,  p.  224  f.).  From  a  comparison 
of  the  introductory  lines  of  Ar  with  the  corresponding  passages 
in  A,  E,  C,  Ward  observed  that  its  affinities  seemed  closest 
with  E;  and  this  indeed  holds  for  the  conclusions  of  several 
of  the  stories  (Ward  deals  with  a  conclusion  ;  cf.  our  parallel- 
ling of  lines  for  medicus,  in  Appendix),  where  A  has  been  seen 
to  be  often  free,  and  where  Ar,  in  consequence,  frequently 
agrees  more  closely  with  any  other  text  than  with  A.  It  does 
not  hold,  however,  as  regards  the  stories  themselves,  where 
E  yields  the  first  place  to  A. 

Except  in  these  conclusions,  Ar  agrees  with  A  very  closely. 
Their  intimate  relation  is  evident  at  once  from  our  line-for- 
line  statistics  on  p.  44.  Of  the  1916  lines  of  the  ^4r-section 
(—A  1816),  234  are  identical  with  lines  in  A,  and  there  are 

1  First  referred  to  in  his  Eine  Ital.  Prosaversion  d.  Sieben  Weisen,  p.  xi, 
and  later  in  his  review  of  Petras,  Eng.  Stud.,  x,  p.  279. 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  55 

722  similar  rimes.  Next  comes  E  (1843  11.)  with  169  iden- 
tical lines  and  746  similar  rimes, — a  slightly  larger  percentage 
of  rimes  than  for  A,  and  an  apparent  discrepancy,  which  is, 
however,  easily  reconciled  by  the  fact  of  A's  characteristic 
curtailments;  B  (1931  11.)  has  137  lines  identical  with  Ar 
and  646  like  rimes,  and  C,  which  comes  last,  has  only  19  lines 
identical  and  413  similar  rimes. 

But  the  closer  relationship  of  Ar  to  A  develops  conclusively 
only  from  a  comparison  of  details.  Here,  while  a  careful  colla- 
tion of  Ar  with  all  other  members  of  Y  reveals  no  noteworthy 
bit  of  detail  in  common  with  any  other  single  text  when  con- 
trasted with  A,  there  are  several  interesting  and  significant 
agreements  of  Ar  with  A  against  the  rest  of  F.  Among  these 
are  the  following :  (1)  A  1462,  "  Ich  wille  bicome  wod  and 
wilde,"  which  is  identical  with  Ar  552;  in  E  1498,  the 
empress  (who  is  speaking  here)  seeks  to  slay  herself  (cf.  L  36, 
"seroie-je  rnorte").  (2)  A  1580,  "And  he  com  als  a 
leopard "  =  Ar  668,  "pane  cam  he  rynnyng  as  a  lyvarde." 
(3)  A  1588,  "Bihote  hem  pans  an  handfolle "  =  Ar  676, 
"  Behote  heme  pens  a  pours  full."  (4)  A  2396,  "Al  to  loude 
thou  spak  thi  latin "  =  Ar  1518,  "To  loude  ]xm  spake  j?y 
latyn."  (5)  A  2744,  "Withe  riche  baudekines  i-spredde"  = 
Ar  1868,  "With  rich  clones  all  byspred."  None  of  these 
verses  have  anything  corresponding  in  any  other  English  text. 
Doubtless  some  of  them  are  only  accidental,  but  such  cannot 
be  the  case  with  all.  Their  evidence  is  well  supported  by 
such  further  agreements  as  in  senescalcus,  where  A  and  Ar 
unite  in  retaining  the  twenty  marks  of  the  original,  other 
M.  E.  texts  varying,  or  as  in  vidua  where  these  two  agree  in 
that  the  wife  is  cut  in  the  womb,  while  E,  B  preserve  the 
French — in  the  thumb  (A*  80,  el  pouce),  C  states  that  the 
wounded  part  is  a  finger,  E  the  hand,  and  D  is  indefinite. 
Of  these  agreements  there  can  be  only  one  explanation,  namely 
in  the  assumption  of  a  connection  between  the  two  texts. 
What  the  nature  of  this  relation  is,  however,  can  be  best 


56  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

determined  after  a  collection  of  corresponding  data  for  the 
other  manuscripts. 

In  comparing  the  remaining  texts  with  Ar,  one  is  at  once 
struck  with  the  remarkable  agreement  of  B,  E  with  A,  Ar. 
These  four  versions  have  a  number  of  features  in  common 
which  do  not  survive  in  C,  F,  or  D.  Thus  (1)  in  gaza,  the 
son  stabs  himself  in  the  thigh  (=  L  33,  en  la  cuisse),  where 
C,  F  are  free,  the  one  reading  cheke,  the  other  honde.  (2)  In 
senescalcus,  the  king  falls  sick  "  by  God's  vengeance  "  (not  in 
L ;  also  omitted  by  C,  D, — F  omitting  the  entire  story).  (3) 
Again  in  the  same  story,  the  king  offers  twenty  marks  or 
pounds  for  a  lady  to  lie  with  (=  L  40,  xx  mars),  where  C 
reads  ten  pounds,  and  D  simply  "  gold  and  silver."  And  this 
is  still  more  apparent  in  a  line-for-liue  collation,  as  is  suffi- 
ciently demonstrated  in  the  Appendix. 

At  the  same  time,  also,  one  cannot  but  remark  certain 
occasional  agreements  of  Ar  with  E,  B  in  opposition  to  A.  For 
instance,  (1)  the  king  in  senescalcus,  with  the  former,  has 
great  delight  in  women,  where  A  on  the  contrary,  in  agree- 
ment with  the  O.  F.,  as  also  with  C,  D,  describes  him  as 
disdaining  women  above  all  things  (L  39,  "  II  desdaingnoit 
fame  seur  toutes  riens ").  And  (2)  in  sapientes,  the  sages  in 
Ar,  E,  B  ask  respite  for  seven  days,  where  A,  C  give  four- 
teen days,  F  12,  L  4-8,  and  K 15.  Likewise  (3)  the  servants 
of  the  king  in  sapientes  dig  under  his  bed  "  four  feet  or  five  " 
in  Ar,  E,  B,  while  A  makes  no  mention  of  the  distance,  but 
says  ten  or  twelve  men  dig ;  so  L  62,  xx  homes.  To  which 
is  to  be  added  (4)  the  agreement  of  Ar,  E,  B  in  having  the 
husband  in  vidua  (Ar  1756)  swear  by  St.  Austyne ; — by 
St.  Johain  in  A  (2630).  Nevertheless,  these  are  not  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  contradict  the  classification  of  Ar  with  A,  but 
merely  indicate  that  in  such  cases,  Ar  best  preserving  the 
original,  independence  has  been  asserted  by  the  poet  of  A. 

But  in  view  of  these  and  of  A'a  frequent  abridgments,  we 
cannot  look  for  the  basis  of  Ar  in  A,  nor — as  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  add,  after  the  citation  of  textual  agreements  with 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  57 

A — in  E  or  jB, — and  still  less,  for  even  more  obvious  reasons, 
in  Cor  F.  The  marked  agreement  of  Ar  with  A,  however, 
begets  the  assumption  of  a  development  of  the  former,  parallel 
with  the  latter,  from  a  common  source  r,  through  which 
they  both  go  back  to  y. 

Certain  agreements  of  Ar  with  E  against  all  other  versions 
including  A  (treated  more  at  length  under  E)  are  not  alto- 
gether easy  to  reconcile,  but  owing  to  Ar's  nearness  to  other 
texts — A  in  particular — as  against  E,  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
sider Ar  as  derived  from  it ;  we  are  led  rather  to  the  converse 
assumption,  of  a  partial  connection,  or  contamination,  of  E 
with  Ar,  or,  in  more  likelihood,  with  the  latter's  immediate 
source  r. 

That  Ar  so  far  as  it  goes,  best  preserves  the  lost  M.  E. 
original  is  borne  out  on  all  sides:  (1)  by  its  close  agreement 
with  the  texts  A  and  E,  which  otherwise  best  reproduce  this 
source ;  (2)  by  the  fact  that  F  in  the  last  four  stories  (in 
which  we  should  expect  a  close  adherence  to  its  original)  is 
closer  to  it  than  to  any  other  text;  and  (3)  that  while  A, 
especially,  and  E,  B,  in  a  less  degree,  often  add  or  omit  lines, 
Ar  almost  never  adds,  and  in  only  rare  cases  abridges.1 

However,  that  no  manuscript  which  has  survived  was  based 
on  Ar  follows  from  its  occasional  freedom,  as  e.  g.,  (1)  its 
rimes  to  171-2,  227-8,  463-4,  etc.,  which  are  parallelled  by 
no  other  text,  and  (2)  in  Roma  the  names  of  Julius  and  July, 
— where  all  other  texts  better  preserve  the  Genus  (Janus)  and 
January  of  the  French. 

E. — With  the  exception  of  Ar,  the  Egerton  MS.  would  be 
of  most  value  in  preparing  a  normalized  text,  since  it  next 
best  preserves  the  original,  and  especially  since  it  is  complete. 

The  value  of  E  is  considerably  impaired,  however,  by  the 
fact  that  its  author — or  more  probably  its  scribe — has  made 
an  unusual  number  of  textual  abridgments, — as  a  rule  for 

1  The  only  addition  in  the  first  1900  11.  is  1871-2 : 

'  When  day  bygane  to  sprynge, 
And  )>e  foules  mery  to  synge.' 


58  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

single  couplets  only,  yet  in  a  few  cases  for  a  half-dozen  or 
more  lines.  Some  of  these  are  the  following :  (1)  after  996 
=  A  991-2,  (2)  1024=  J.  1019-20,  (3)  1216  =  A  1211-2, 
(4)  1400  =A  1385-6,  (5)  1500=  A  1465-6,  (6)  1530  =A 
1500-1,  (7)  1558  =A  1529-30,  (8)  1578  =A  1549-50,  (9) 
1646  =J.  1615-6,  (10)  1652  =J.  1623-4,  (11)  1662  =.4 
1633-4,  (12)  1784  =.4  1749-50,  etc.,  and,  most  radical  of 
all,  (13)  after  2472  =,4  2424  f.,  where  ten  lines  have  been 
lost.1  In  consequence  of  this,  E  is  somewhat  shorter  than 
either  of  the  other  complete  texts,  B  and  C.  For  the  2564 
lines  of  the  Arundel  fragment,  it  has  only  2365 ;  and  this 
number  in  reality  should  be  reduced  18  lines,  since  the  couplets 
with  which  E  heads  nine  of  its  stories,  and  which  have  been 
included  in  this  numbering,  did  not  belong  to  the  original,  it 
is  safe  to  assume,  and  should  not,  for  purposes  of  comparison, 
be  regarded  as  part  of  the  text. 

But  beyond  these  slight  abridgments,  the  author  of  E  has, 
in  the  handling  of  his  original,  exhibited  almost  no  independ- 
ence. One  looks  in  vain  for  such  abridgments  as  characterize 
A,  as  also  for  significant  additions  such  as  are  found  in  F  and 
C.  Excepting  such  occasional  freedom  as  the  assigning  to 
the  incident  in  Roma  the  date  of  the  first  of  January,  and  the 
changing  of  the  barber  in  tentamina  into  a  borowe — a  scribal 
error,  doubtless — we  shall  find  scarcely  one  other  feature  ex- 
clusively peculiar  to  E,  until  we  have  reached  almost  the  end 
of  the  poem,  when  the  poet  for  once  appears  to  assert  his  inde- 
pendence, and  we  have  in  consequence  the  very  interesting 
addition  that — 

' whenne  that  his  fadyr  dede  was, 

He  lete  make  a  nobylle  plas, 

1  The  additions  are  less  numerous.  Among  those  which  are  parallelled 
by  no  more  than  one  other  text,  or  are  peculiar  to  E,  are  (1)  986-7  (after 
A  974),  (2)  1015-6  (a.  A  1012),  (3)  1245-6  (a.  A  1238),  (4)  1621-2  =  4 
1591-2,  (5)  1693-6  (a.  A  1664),  (6)  1761-2  (a.  A  1726),  (7)  1809-10  (a.  A 
1780),  (8)  2097-2103  (a.  A  2068),  (9)  2291-4  (a.  A  2246),  and  (10)  2349- 
51  (a.  A  2298). 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  59 

And  a  fayre  abbeye  he  lete  begynne, 
And  vu.  schore  raonkys  brought  thereyn, 
And  euyr  more  to  rede  and  synge 
For  hys  fadyr  witA-owte  lesynge.'    (3561-6) 

All  other  important  variations  in  E  are  repeated  in  some 
one  or  more  of  the  related  M.  E.  versions.  The  agreement 
here  is  closest  with  B  and  Ar.  Its  near  relation  to  the  latter 
has  already  been  shown,  and  it  has  been  pointed  out  that 
there  are  features  in  which  the  two  are  alone ;  and  there  are 
also  cases  in  which  the  two  are  alone  in  textual  abridg- 
ments:  e.g.  Ar  227-8  =E  11 71-2.  It  has  also  been  seen 
under  Ar,  that  B  in  several  instances  falls  in  with  E,  Ar,  as 
against  A,  C,  F. 

It  remains  to  point  out  some  of  the  motives  common  to 
E,  B  versus  the  remaining  texts  of  Y.  The  most  important 
of  these  are  the  following:  (1)  arbor — lords  and  ladies  begin 
to  weep  when  they  see  the  prince  led  forth  to  be  hanged ; 
(2)  arbor — Bancyllas  assures  the  emperor  that  the  prince 
will  recover  his  speech;  (3)  sapientes — both  omit  the  detail 
of  A,  Ar,  C  that  Merlin  declines  the  offer  of  money  made 
by  the  man  whose  dream  he  has  interpreted ;  (4)  vidua — 
the  wife  is  cut  in  the  thumb,  where  other  texts  have  vari- 
ously womb,  finger,  and  hand  ;  as  also  (5)  vidua — the  knight's 
disregarding  the  widow's  suggestion  that  he  knock  out  her 
husband's  teeth  ;  (6)  Roma — the  sage  who  makes  the  propo- 
sition for  saving  Rome  is  called  Junyus  (A,  C,  F,  Gemes  ;  Ar, 
Julius;  D,  Gynevcr).  In  several  of  these,  to  wit  3,  4,  5,  it  will 
be  observed,  E,  B  are  truest  to  the  French. 

Such  evidence  as  this  precludes  the  thought  of  a  basis  of  E 
in  Ar,  but  in  view  of  the  agreements  between  the  two  already 
noted,  and,  especially,  of  the  fact  that  there  is  a  greater  num- 
ber of  Ar-\ines  than  of  5-lines  identical  with  E's  (cf.  p.  44), 
it  does  not  seem  improbable — though  I  am  unable  to  prove  it — 
that  the  author  of  E  has  known  and  been  partly  influenced  by  Ar. 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  abundant  evidence  of  an  all  but 
immediate  connection  between  B  and  E:  (1)  in  the  agree- 
ments in  details  just  cited,  and  (2)  in  the  textual  omissions 


60  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

and  additions  which  the  two  have  exclusively  in  common. 
Thus,  of  the  thirteen  Remissions  collected  above,  six  (1,  7, 
9,  10,  11,  12)  are  also  in  B;  and  of  the  ten  additions  cited  in 
the  foot-note  (p.  58),  three  (1,  8,  9)  are  common  to  B, — or  a 
total  of  9  out  of  23 — a  remarkable  showing  when  it  is  borne 
in  mind  that  in  ten  of  these  cases  E  is  alone,  agreeing  in  only 
one  case  (abridgments — 9)  with  any  other  text  than  B. 

Despite  these,  however,  E  cannot  have  been  based  on  B, 
since  it  preserves  in  agreement  with  other  texts — notably 
AT — features  of  the  original  which  B  omits. 

In  the  next  section  it  will  be  shown,  also,  that  B  was  not 
based  on  E,  and  it  will  be  further  demonstrated  that  the  two 
are  related  through  a  common  source. 

B. — The  Balliol  text,  like  E,  is  complete  and  of  late  com- 
position. The  analogy  between  the  two  does  not  stop  here, 
however ;  there  are  many  things  which  bind  them  together, 
not  only  when  looked  at  externally,  but  also  from  an  interior 
point  of  view.  One  of  the  most  striking  phenomena  which 
they  have  in  common,  and  which  one  cannot  but  remark  in 
comparing  them  with  Ar  and  the  remaining  F-texts,  is  the 
tendency  to  reverse  the  order  of  words,  or  to  substitute 
synonymous  or  analogous  expressions, — in  consequence  of 
which  the  identity  of  the  line  and  often  the  rime  is  destroyed. 
This  is  equally  as  prominent  in  B  as  in  Et  if  not  more  so. 
In  B  especially,  the  change  of  epithet  often  flows,  one  feels, 
from  a  desire  to  modernize,  rather  than  from  a  conscious 
effort,  as  might  be  supposed,  to  conceal  the  source. 

In  some  other  respects,  however,  B  and  E  are  very  unlike. 
For  instance,  while  it  is  characteristic  of  E  to  drop  out  one 
or  more  couplets  for  every  column,  B  is  exceptionally  free 
from  such  slight  curtailments,  while  its  additional  couplets 
are  comparatively  numerous.1  Moreover,  while  E  is  at  first 

1  In  the  first  1000  lines  of  the  part  selected  for  a  line-for-line  comparison 
(=  B  933-1951),  B  has  16  couplets  which  do  not  appear  in  any  other 
manuscript,  and  which  were  accordingly,  in  large  part  in  all  probability, 
its  own  additions.  E,  on  the  contrary,  has  only  4,  or  one-fourth  as  nuiny 
(1015-6,  1245-6  and  1693-6). 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  61 

close  to  the  original — more  so  by  far  in  the  first  thousand 
lines  than  anywhere  else — and  becomes  more  and  more  free,  B 
exhibits  just  the  reverse  tendency,  and  we  find  it  in  the  last 
third  of  the  poem  textually  almost  as  close  to  the  original 
as  is  E. 

As  regards  incident,  B  is  usually  more  free  than  any 
one  of  the  texts  so  far  treated.  Its  chief  variations — in  the 
nature  of  additions  largely — are  the  following  :  (1)  aper — 
the  herd  fills  both  arms  and  sleeves  (later  laps)  with  the  haws; 

A,  E,  laps  =  L  23,  girons;  C,  D,  hood.    (2)  medicus — the  ille- 
gitimate father  of  the  sick  prince,  called  in  the  remaining 
members  of  Y  either  the  earl  or  the  king  of  Naverne  (==  L  27, 
li  quens  de  Namur)  is  not  named.    (3)  puteus — besides  the 
feature  peculiar  to  Yy  viz.  that  the  burgess  would  only  marry 
some  one  from  a  distance,  B  adds  that  he  also  would  marry 
no  poor  woman, — with  the  additional  information  that  he 
already  had  had  two  wives.     The  feature  of  A,  E,  Ar,  that 
he  made  a  covenant  with  the  bride's  father,  does  not  appear  in 

B.  (4)  senescalcus — while  in  the  remaining  texts  the  steward 
is  banished,  in  B  he  is  put  to  death — and  by  pouring  molten 
silver  and  lead  down  his  throat.     This  incident,  which  consti- 
tutes the  most  violent  freedom  of  -B,  is  apparently  borrowed 
from  Virgilius,   where   Crassus   dies   a   similar  death.     The 
punishment  in  either  case  is  fitted  to  the  crime.    (5)  tenta- 
mina — the  wife  wishes  to  love  the  parish  priest,  where  A,  A r, 
E,  Fy  C  have  simply  priest  =  L,  provoire  (but  see  jD*  27, 
Messire  Guillaume  le  chappelain  de  la  parroise).    (6)  sapientes — 
they  meet  with  the  old  man  after  two  days;  other  texts  not 
definite  as  to  time.    (7)  Roma — the  town  is  put  in  charge  of 
two  wise  men ;   in  other  texts  it  is  seven.    (8)  inclusa — the 
knight  has  travelled  only  one  month  before  he  comes  into 
the  land  of  his  lady ;  according  to  other  M.  E.  versions  it  is 
three  months  (K,  Z)*,  A*  89,  trois  semaines;  but  cf.  Varn- 
hageu's  Ital.  Prosaversion,  p.  36,  ire  mesi.    (9)  inclusa — the 
wife's  ring  had  been  given  her  as  a  New  Year's  gift, — an 
invention  of  B. 


62  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

But  while  B  has  thus  many  features  peculiar  to  itself,  it 
possesses  very  few  exclusively  peculiar  to  itself  and  any  one 
other  text, — a  circumstance  which  renders  the  problem  of  its 
relations  somewhat  difficult  of  solution.  We  may  resort, 
however,  to  the  verse-omissions  or  additions,  and  it  is  signifi- 
cant here  that  the  evidence  from  motive-comparison  (submitted 
already  under  E)  which  pointed  to  a  relation  with  E,  receives 
very  strong  confirmation.  In  almost  every  instance  in  which 
B  agrees  in  an  addition  or  omission  with  only  one  other  text, 
this  text  is  E.  Thus,  in  the  first  thousand  lines  of  the  con- 
stant element  in  Y  (=  B  934  f.),  there  is  a  total  of  ten  such 
variations,  of  which  nine  are  in  agreement  with  E — the  tenth 
being  with  (7,  an  agreement  which  can  only  be  explained  as  a 
coincidence  or,  at  least,  as  signifying  nothing.  The  agreements 
with  E,  however,  cannot  well  be  accidental.  They  offer  strong 
confutation  of  the  evidence  of  the  line-collation  (p.  44),  which 
seems  to  indicate  a  closer  relationship  with  A  or  Ar. 

That  B  was  not  based  on  either  of  the  latter — A,  Ar — 
follows  from  the  fact  that  it  preserves  certain  features  of  the 
original  (cf.  3,  4,  5  of  motive-agreements  of  E,  J5,  p.  59)  which 
they  have  either  lost  or  altered. 

And  that  both  B  and  E  go  back  to  y  independently  of  each 
other  is  rendered  improbable  in  the  highest  degree  by  their 
agreements  in  omissions  and  additions.  We  are  forced  then  to 
the  assumption  of  the  existence  at  some  time  of  a  manuscript — 
denoted  by  s — which  served  as  the  common  source  of  B 
and  E. 

F. — There  is  no  one  of  the  M.  E.  texts  of  the  Seven  Sages 
which  has  been  more  imperfectly  reported  than  that  contained 
in  the  Cambridge  University  MS.  Ff,  II,  38.  Wright  as  early 
as  1845  was  acquainted  with  this  version,  and  printed  in  the 
introduction  (p.  LXX)  to  his  edition  of  D  the  opening  lines, 
but  vouchsafed  no  further  description  of  the  text  than  that  it 
presented  many  different  readings  from  A  and  was  much 
mutilated.  And  Petras,  on  the  basis  of  this  description,  and 
with  the  aid  of  about  190  lines  of  the  text,  has  inclined  to  the 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  63 

view  that  F  is  nearer  to  C  than  to  any  other  M.  E.  version.1 
Neither  Wright  nor  Petras,  however,  has  made  reference  to 
the  description  of  Halliwell  in  his  Thornton  Romances  (Cam- 
den  Society  Publications,  xxx,  p.  XLII  f.),  and  both  were 
evidently  ignorant  of  it. 

The  description  of  Halliwell  is  the  most  reliable  which  has 
up  to  this  time  appeared ;  yet  in  one  or  two  instances  it,  too, 
is  inaccurate.  For  example,  the  thirteenth  story  of  F  has 
been  overlooked  entirely;  again  it  implies  that  there  is  only 
one  new  story  introduced  into  this  version, — the  one  which 
he  prints  on  p.  XLIII  f.  In  reality  there  is  a  second  story  in 
F  which  is  peculiar  to  it, — the  ninth  story,  to  which  Halliwell 
gives  the  name  The  Squyer  and  his  Borowe.  This  tale  is 
complete  and  runs  as  follows  : 

'  Hy  t  was  a  squyer  of  thys  centre, 
1115   And  full  welbelouyd  was  he. 

Yn  dedys  of  arrays  and  yn  justyng   [145  b.] 

He  bare  hym  beste  yn  hys  begynnyng. 

So  hyt  befelle  he  had  a  systur  sone, 

That  for  syluyr  he  had  nome, 
1 120   He  was  put  yn  preson  strong, 

And  schulde  be  dampned,  and  be  hong. 

The  squyer  faste  thedur  can  gon, 

And  askyd  them  swythe  anon 

What  >yng  he  had  borne  a-way ; 
1125   And  they  answeryd,  and  can  say, 

He  had  stolen  syluyr  grete  plente ; 

Therfore  hangyd  schulde  he  bee. 

The  squyer  hym  profurd,  permafay, 

To  be  hys  borowe  tyll  a  certen  day, 
1130   For  to  amende  that  he  mysdede, 

Anon  they  toke  hym  yn  that  stede, 

And  bounde  hym  faste  fote  and  honde 

And  caste  hym  yn-to  preson  stronge. 

They  let  hys  cosyn  go  a-way 
1135   To  quyte  hym  be  a  certen  day. 

Grete  pathes  then  used  he, 

And  men  he  slewe  grete  plente. 

Moche  he  stale  and  bare  a-way, 

And  stroyed  the  centre  nyght  and  day. 

aSee  his  dissertation,  p.  31.  Cf.  also  Varnhagen,  in  his  review  of  Petras, 
Englische  Studien,  X,  p.  281  f. 


64  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

1140  Bot  upon  )>e  squyer  )>oght  he  nothyng 

That  he  yn  preson  lefte  lyeng, 

So  that  tyme  came  as  y  yow  say, 

But  for  the  squyer  came  no  paye. 

He  was  hanged  on  a  galowe  tree. 
1145   For  hym  was  dole  and  grete  pyte, 

When  the  noble  squyer  was  slon,    [145  c.] 

For  hym  morned  many  oon. 

That  odur  robbyd  and  stale  moche  }>yng, 

And  sethyn  was  hangyd  at  hys  endyng. 
1150  Thus  schall  be-tyde  of  J>e,  syr  Emperour, 

And  of  thy  sone,  so  gret  of  honour.' 

Otherwise  Halliwell's  description  is  characterized  by  the 
strictest  accuracy,  and  leaves  no  room  for  the  assumption, 
apparently  made  by  Petras,  of  an  identity  in  the  order  of 
stories  between  ^and  the  remaining  M.  E.  versions. 

The  correct  order  of  stories  in  F  is  as  follows :  (1)  arbor, 
(2)  puteus,  (3)  aper,  (4)  tentamina,  (5)  gaza  (end  of),  (6)  vidua, 
(7)  Riotous  Son  (beginning  of),  (8)  canis  (end  of),  (9)  Squyer 
and  Borowe,  (10)  avis,  (11)  sapientes,  (1 2)  medicus,  (13)  Roma, 
(14)  inclusa,  and  (15)  vatidnium.  Eight  stories  then  (1,  3,  5, 
10,  11,  13,  14,  15)  retain  their  usual  order.  The  two  new 
stories,  7  and  9,  supplant  senescalcus  and  Virgilius,  taking  their 
respective  order.  For  the  remaining  five  stories,  2  changes 
place  with  8,  4  with  12,  6  with  2,  8  with  4,  and  12  with  6. 
For  this  order  there  is  no  parallel  either  in  other  English  or 
in  foreign  versions,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  was 
original  with  the  .F-redactor. 

In  content,  also,  F  is  very  unique.  In  some  cases  the  orig- 
inal story  has  been  altered  almost  beyond  recognition.  This 
alteration  consists  largely  in  textual  abridgments,  but  it  is  also 
very  evident  in  the  many  new  incidents  that  have  been  intro- 
duced. 

The  introduction,  in  contradistinction  to  the  stories  of  the 
first  part,  is  but  slightly  abridged.  It  exhibits  several  more 
or  less  interesting  variations,  but  the  only  one  of  any  signifi- 
cance is  the  assigning  to  the  king's  steward  the  distinction 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  65 

(accorded  the  king's  retinue  in  the  other  texts)  of  making  the 
petition  which  saves  the  prince's  life  the  first  day. 

1  Then  come  forthe  the  steward, 
And  seyde,  st/r,  thys  was  not  forward, 
When  that  y  helde  the  thy  londe, 
When  ii.  kynges  bade  >e  batell  with  wrong, 
And  then  hou  swere  be  heuen  kyng 
Thou  schuldest  neuer  warne  me  myn  askyng. 
Geue  me  thy  sones  lyfe  to-day, 
Yentyll  Emperour,  y  the  pray, 
And  let  hym  to-morowe  be  at  J?y  wylle, 
Whethur  K>u  wylt  hym  saue  or  spylle. 
I  graunt  the,  seyde  the  Emperour, 
To  geue  hym  lyfe  be  seynt  sauyour.'     (380-391) 

Arbor  is  very  much  abridged,  the  story  proper  comprising 
only  twenty  lines.  There  is  no  mention  of  the  burgess's  going 
away  from  home,  nor  of  the  trimming  away  of  the  branches 
of  the  old  tree. 

Of  cam's  only  a  short  fragment  is  left,  for  which  compare 
Halliwell,  Thornton  Romances,  p.  XLIV. 

Aper  has  to  do  with  a  "swynherde"  who  has  lost  a  "boor," 

and  who 

1 durste  not  go  home  to  hys  mete 

For  drede  hys  maystyrs  wolde  hym  bete,' 

but  climbs  a  tree,  and  is  making  a  repast  of  acorns  when  the 
wild-boar  of  the  forest  comes  up. 

Medicus  is  one  of  the  last  four  stories, — hence  agrees  faith- 
fully with  its  original. 

Only  the  conclusion  of  gaza  has  been  preserved. 

Puteus  has  undergone  radical  alteration:  (L)  The  curfew 
of  the  original  is  omitted.  Instead  of  it  there  is  a  law  in 
Rome  that  whosoever  shall  be  found  away  from  home  at 
night  with  any  woman  other  than  his  wife  shall  be  stoned 
to  death  on  the  morrow.  (2)  The  lover  here  is  a  "  squire  of 
great  renown."  (3)  The  burgess  uses  a  rope  in  trying  to  get 
his  wife  from  the  well.  (4)  He  has  already  had  two  wives 
before  his  marriage  with  the  one  who  figures  here.  This 
5 


66  KILL1S   CAMPBELL. 

feature  has  been  transplanted  from  the  introduction  to  tenta- 
mina,  where  it  properly  belongs. 

Senescalcus  and  Virgilius  do  not  appear  in  F. 

Tentamina  is  characterized  by  the  addition  of  a  fourth  trial, 
the  killing  of  the  knight's  hawk.  Other  features  are  (1)  the 
assigning  to  the  wife  the  office  of  the  gardener  in  the  first 
trial  (she  fells  the  tree,  and  sets  "  dokys  and  nettuls "  in  its 
stead),  (2)  the  omission  of  mention  of  the  church  as  the  meet- 
ing-place of  mother  and  daughter,  and  (3)  the  transference  to 
puteus  of  the  '  two-wives  '-feature. 

Avis,  though  textually  free,  contains  no  unusual  details 
other  than  (1)  that  the  lover  is  a  priest,  and  (2)  that  the  wife 
is  killed  by  the  enraged  husband. 

In  sapientes,  however,  there  are  several  striking  variations : 
(1)  The  sages  build  a  "  horde-house"  just  above  the  city  gate, 
which  renders  the  emperor  blind  whenever  he  tries  to  pass  it 
in  going  out  of  the  city.  (2)  There  is  no  mention  of  Merlin's 
first  dream-interpretation,  a  feature  in  which  F  agrees  with 
D, — an  agreement,  however,  which  can  only  be  accidental 
since  F  contains  the  search  for  and  meeting  of  the  sages  with 
Merlin,  which  we  find  no  hint  of  in  D. 

Vidua  has  the  following  peculiar  features:  (1)  The  husband 
will  never  let  his  wife  go  a  half-mile  from  him,  "  neither  to  church 
nor  to  cheping."  (2)  The  wife  is  paring  a  pear  when  she  cuts 
herself.  (3)  There  is  mention  of  only  one  thief,  and  he  is  not 
alluded  to  as  a  knight.  (4)  A  "pyke  and  spade"  are  used  in 
digging  up  the  corpse.  (5)  In  addition  to  the  mutilations 
usually  recorded,  F  adds  a  fourth, — the  cutting  off  of  two 
fingers  which  the  knight  claimed  that  the  thief  had  lost. 

The  last  three  stories,  Roma,  inclusa,  and  vaticinium,  offer 
essential  agreement  in  detail  with  the  other  texts  of  Y. 

The  variations  of  -F  are  thus  seen  to  be  very  numerous. 
Yet,  significant  though  many  of  them  are,  they  tell  only  half 
the  story.  The  whole  truth  is  revealed  only  when  it  is  con- 
sidered that  along  with  these,  and  partly  consequent  upon 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  67 

them,  the  length  of  the  poem  has  been  reduced  by  about 
one-third,  or  to  little  more  than  2500  lines. 

And  what  is  most  noteworthy  about  this  abridgment  is 
that  it  is  not  carried  through  the  entire  text,  but  extends  only 
through  the  eleventh  story.  Up  to  the  conclusion  of  this 
story  the  greatest  freedom  prevails,  old  incidents  are  rejected 
and  new  ones  introduced  at  will,  and,  again  resorting  to 
figures  for  forcible  illustration,  the  text  is  reduced  from  a 
normal  2500  lines  to  scarcely  more  than  1000.1  In  the 
remaining  four  stories,  however,  there  is,  as  has  been  seen, 
close  agreement  with  the  remaining  texts  of  Y. 

How  to  account  for  this  wholesale  mutilation  to  which  F 
has  subjected  its  original  is  not  an  easy  problem.  One  would 
think  of  a  basis  for  the  first  part  in  oral  accounts,  but  this  is 
rendered  extremely  improbable  by  the  fact  that  throughout 
this  part  there  is  frequent  agreement  of  rimes,  and  not  unusual 
identity  of  lines,  with  other  M.  E.  versions.  Or  again,  there 
is  a  possibility  that  J^  was  made  from  some  very  fragmentary 
manuscript,  but  there  is  no  substantial  basis  for  this  supposi- 
tion, and  the  changed  order  of  stories  is  distinctly  against  it. 
The  most  probable  view,  by  far,  seems  to  be  that  the  poet  had 
before  him  a  complete  manuscript,  which,  for  some  reason, 
possibly  to  conceal  his  source,  he  has  for  the  first  eleven  stories 
arbitrarily  altered  ;  and  that  beginning  with  the  twelfth  story, 
having  grown  tired  of  his  task,  he  has  for  the  remaining  stories 
reproduced  his  original  with  fidelity. 

With  the  acceptance  of  this  explanation,  the  problem  of  F'a 
relationship  is  rendered  comparatively  simple ;  for,  if  the 
variations  of  the  first  part  are  attributable  to  the  poet,  this 
part  is  of  little  value  for  purposes  of  comparison,  and  we  are 
accordingly  restricted  to  the  last  part  as  the  basis  for  any 
investigation. 

For  this  part  there  is  comparatively  close  textual  agreement 
with  E,  B,  C,  Ar,  and  A  (the  last  two  unfortunately  frag- 
mentary here  in  part).  No  single  important  detail  and  a  very 

'For  the  corresponding  part,  E  has  2593  lines,  and  B,  2658. 


68  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

small  percentage  of  the  rimes  have  been  changed,  while  lines 
identical  with  one  or  more  of  the  other  texts  are  numerous. 
The  agreement  is  closest  with  Ar  as  a  rule,  with  E  next  in 
order;  thus,  for  the  845  lines  (F  1440-2285)  which  the  three 
texts  have  in  common,  only  53  lines  of  F  are  identical  with 
lines  in  E,  while  the  corresponding  figure  for  Ar  is  116. 
Again,  for  this  section  Ar  has  agreement  with  F  in  26  couplets 
which  do  not  appear  in  ^(^1476-7, 1490-1, 1694-5  [£,  A], 
1714-5,  1726-31,  1738-9,  1754-5,  1774-7,  1790-1,  etc). 
But  despite  this  affinity  with  Ar,  .F  cannot  have  been  based 
on  it,  for  in  one  case  (.F  2280-1)  Ar  lacks  a  couplet  which  both 
E  and  .Fhave  preserved,  and  in  other  cases,  it  has  made  inde- 
pendent additions  (cf.  Ar  1896-7,  2374-7,  2384-5).  This 
slight  evidence  is  everywhere  well  supported  :  on  the  one 
hand  we  find  B,  though  much  farther  removed  than  E  or  Ar, 
nearest  F  (cf.  B  1095  =  F  1578) ;  again  A  will  be  found  to 
be, nearest  (cf.  A  997  =  F 1464,  A  1016  =  F 1487,  A  1048 
=  F 1518,  A  1088-9  =  F  1553-4) ;  while  in  other  instances 
several  will  agree  as  against  Ar  (cf.  A  2762  =  B  2848  =  F 
1679,  and  A  2751  =  E  2762  =  B  2833  =  F  1662). 

In  the  face  of  this  otherwise  contradictory  evidence,  it  is 
impossible  to  find  the  source  of  ^7in  any  one  known  manuscript. 
At  the  same  time  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  a  partial  basis 
on  any  two  of  them,  since  some  exclusive  agreements  with 
each  of  the  other  closely  related  texts  are  found.  On  the 
contrary,  the  evidence  from  all  sides  combines  to  show  that  F 
goes  back  to  y  independently  of  any  other  known  manuscript. 

C. — Petras,  although  he  showed  a  close  agreement  of  C 
with  A — 52  lines  identical  and  1296  with  similar  rimes — 
classed  it  apart  from  A,  and  as  only  related  with  it  through 
a  common  O.  F.  source.1  His  own  figures,  however,  as 
Varnhagen  has  already  pointed  out,  justify  quite  another 
conclusion  ;  for  it  is  inconceivable  that  two  independent  trans- 
lations from  a  foreign  source  should  have  52  out  of  about 
2500  lines  identical,  or  1300  with  like  rimes.  The  rather  are 

'See  his  dissertation,  p.  21. 


THE   SEVEN  SAGES.  69 

we  to  conclude  that  C  is  ultimately  based  on  the  ultimate 
common  original  of  A,  Ar,  E,  By  F,  and  belongs  with  them 
to  group  Y. 

Of  all  M.  E.  texts  C  is  the  fullest  and,  from  a  literary 
point  of  view,  the  most  perfect.  At  the  same  time  it  is,  with 
the  exception  of  F,  the  freest  of  the  texts  which  comprise  Y. 
This  freedom,  however,  does  not  consist  in  the  changed  order 
of  stories  nor  the  wholesale  mutilation  of  text  which  charac- 
terize F]  nor  is  it  violent  or  spasmodic.  It  flows  from 
an  independence  or  individuality  of  a  much  higher  type,  which 
neither  eliminates  old  motives  nor  introduces  new  ones  of  a 
startling  nature,  but  which  contents  itself,  on  .the  one  hand, 
with  a  slight  variation  of  the  episode  (generally  in  the  nature 
of  additions),  on  the  other,  with  the  enlargement  and  embellish- 
ment of  the  often  more  or  less  lifeless  language  of  its  original, — 
in  both  cases  with  the  purpose  of  heightening  the  poetic  effect. 
So  that,  while  we  see  in  A  the  most  important  of  the  M.  E. 
texts  from  an  historical  viewpoint,  in  Ar  the  most  faithful 
representative  of  the  lost  y,  we  have  in  C  preeminently  the 
most  perfect  poem,  holding,  as  it  does,  in  language,  style,  and 
metre,  the  first  place  in  the  early  English  group. 

As  regards  fidelity  to  the  original,  as  already  suggested,  C 
does  not  occupy  a  very  high  rank.  Its  variations,  however, 
consist  rather  in  amplification  than  in  invention,  as  is  well 
illustrated  by  the  fact  that,  while  600  additional  lines  have 
been  interwoven  into  the  text,  there  are  only  the  following 
noteworthy  variations  of  incident :  (1)  The  step-mother  in 
bringing  about  the  prince's  downfall  seeks  counsel  and  assist- 
ance from  a  witch  (297).  (2)  In  arbor,  the  tree  with  which 
the  story  deals  is  a  pineapple-tree ;  A,  E,  B,  F  read  pynnote- 
tree,  and  D,  apple-tree.  (3)  The  queen  in  medicus  states  that 
it  has  been  twelve  years  since  the  Earl  of  Naverne  had  visited 
her  (1167) ;  other  texts  indefinite.  (4)  The  patient  in  the  same 
story  is  advised  to  "  Ete  beres  fless  and  drink  J;e  bro  "  (1184). 
A,  Ar,  E,  B,  "  beef's  flesh  with  the  broth  "  (E,  "  with  the 
blood  ") ;  L  27,  char  de  buef.  (5)  There  is  mention  of  only 


70  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

two  clerks  in  gaza,  where  the  remaining  English  and  the  French 
texts  have  seven,  five  of  whom  are  stationed  away  from  the  city 
(1319).  (6)  In  the  same  story  the  father  alone  goes  into  the 
tower  Cressent,  while  in  the  other  texts  both  father  and  sou 
go  (1340).  (7)  In  tentamina,  the  history  of  each  of  the  two 
deceased  wives  is  related  separately;  in  other  texts  it  is  simply 
stated  that  the  husband  had  survived  two  wives  (1879).  (8) 
In  the  same  story,  also,  it  will  be  noted  that  only  the  right 
arm  of  the  wife  is  bled.  (9)  In  Virgilius,  the  two  brothers  them- 
selves fill  the  two  "forcers" ;  elsewhere  the  King  has  them  filled. 
Other  variations  here  are  the  changed  order  of  incident  in 
burying  the  treasure,  and  the  omission  of  the  name  of  the 
Emperor  (Crassus).  (10)  There  is,  in  avis,  no  mention  of  a 
maid  as  assisting  the  faithless  wife.  (11)  The  lord  of  the 
castle  in  inclusa  is  playing  chess  when  the  knight  rides  up 
(3294).  (12)  The  son  in  vaticinium  learns  of  the  whereabouts 
of  his  father  through  a  vision  (4135). 

We  may  judge  from  this  enumeration  how  faithfully  C  has 
reproduced  the  subject-matter  of  the  original.  It  has  altered 
very  few  details,  and  none  radically,  while  no  single  significant 
feature,  either  from  the  body  or  from  the  end  of  its  stories, 
has  been  omitted ;  at  the  same  time,  only  an  occasional  bit  of 
detail  has  been  added, — a  remarkable  showing,  indeed,  when 
the  large  increase  in  the  number  of  lines  is  considered. 

But  there  is  more  specific  evidence  of  C's  fidelity  to  its 
original.  There  are  certain  details  in  which  it  appears  to  give 
a  more  faithful  reflex  of  the  Old  French  than  any  other  M.  E. 
text.  Thus,  in  aper,  the  boar  on  reaching  the  tree  finds 
"  hawes  ferly  fone  "  (987) ;  cf.  L  23,  "  s'il  se  merveille  mult 
durement  de  ce  qu'il  ne  pot  autretant  trover  des  alies  comme 
il  soloit  faire  devant."  According  to  other  M.  E.  versions  the 
boar  finds  no  haws  at  all.  Another  illustration  may  be  had 
from  inclusa,  where  C  (3264)  preserves  the  Hongrie  of  the 
French  (A*  89)  as  the  land  into  which  the  knight  finally 
comes  in  search  of  his  lady ;  M.  E.  variants  are  Pletys  in  Ar, 
and  Poyle  in  E,  F,  and  D. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  71 

And  there  are  also  instances  in  which  C  is  in  agreement  with 
only  one  other  text  in  its  preservation  of  the  French  :  (1)  With 
A  in  its  rendering  blanche  leuriere  (K  2604 ;  L  45,  only  leu- 
riere) by  gray  bitch,  where  Ar,  E,  B  render  greyhound,  F 
simply  hound.  (2)  With  F  in  giving,  in  Roma,  the  informa- 
tion as  to  the  origin  of  the  word  January  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Janus-episode  ;  other  M.  E.  versions,  where  they  preserve 
this  detail,  depart  from  the  O.  F.  order  in  placing  it  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  story. 

It  is  to  these  facts  in  the  main  that  we  have  to  resort  to 
determine  C's  immediate  relations ;  for  the  theory  of  a  direct 
translation  from  the  O.  F.  can  no  longer  be  defended  in  the 
face  of  the  evidence  from  a  comparison  of  rimes,  etc.  From 
this  comparison  it  is  evident  that  C  is  nearly  related  to  the 
other  versions  of  group  Y.  That  it  cannot  have  been  based  on 
any  one  of  them,  however,  follows  from  its  agreements  (just 
cited)  with  the  French  where  the  remaining  M.  E.  texts  are 
free.  And  this  also  derives  confirmation  from  the  features 
which  it  has  exclusively  in  common  with  only  one  M.  E.  ver- 
sion and  the  O.  F.,  for  neither  of  the  two  M.  E.  versions  in 
point  here  (A  and  F)  can  possibly  have  been  its  original. 

We  have,  accordingly,  to  assume  for  Can  independent  basis 
in  the  lost  text  y.  Whether  one  or  more  manuscripts  inter- 
vene between  C  and  y  cannot  be  determined  so  long  as  they 
are  not  forthcoming ;  in  any  case  there  seems  nothing  to  sup- 
port Varnhagen's  proposition  (Eng.  Stud.,  x,  p.  280)  of  a 
"  mundliche  Ueberlieferungsstufe  "  between  the  two. 

D. — Version  D,  as  compared  with  the  texts  so  far  con- 
sidered, is  unique,  and  cannot  be  classed  with  them  in  group 
Y.  Though  it  is  written  in  the  same  metre  as  the  remaining 
M.  E.  versions,  and  while  it  preserves,  also,  the  ^.-order  of 
stories,  it  differs  from  each  and  every  text  of  Y  much  more 
radically  than  any  one  of  these  differs  from  any  other.  And 
so  great  has  this  difference  seemed  that  scholars  have  been 
unanimous  in  assuming  for  D  an  immediate  basis  in  the  Old 
French.  The  thought  of  a  near  kinship  with  any  other  M.  E. 


72  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

version  appears  never  to  have  been  entertained.  Wright's 
testimony  is  to  the  effect  that  "The  two  English  metrical 
versions  (by  which  he  meant  A  and  D)  are  altogether  different 
compositions ;  but  ....  were  evidently  translated  from  the 
same  original.  .  .  ." l  And  the  views  of  Petras  (p.  44  f.)  and 
others  are  of  like  import.  Scholars  without  exception  seem 
to  have  blindly  accepted  Wright's  view,  with  no  effort  what- 
ever to  test  its  validity. 

That  Wright's  assumption  is  unwarranted,  however,  may 
be  demonstrated,  it  is  believed,  beyond  question.  And  it 
will  be  the  purpose  of  the  following  pages  to  make  good  this 
assertion.  With  this  end  in  view,  we  may  first  bring  together 
the  chief  variations  in  incident  which  D  exhibits. 

The  introduction  of  D  contains  no  significant  alteration 
of  the  original.  A  unique  feature  is  the  naming  of  the  queen 
Helie  (variant  Elye,  223)  where  the  French  is  silent,  but 
where  Fhas  the  name  Milicent  (or  Ilacent).  In  not  giving  a 
name  to  the  prince  it  falls  in  with  the  French ;  other  M.  E. 
texts  call  him  Florentine.  There  is  a  slight  enlargement  in 
the  account  of  the  meeting  of  the  father  and  son,  in  which 
we  have  possibly  a  more  faithful  preservation  of  the  French 
than  in  Y.  Other  slight  variations  are  the  additional  nature- 
touch  in  having  the  queen  ask  to  see  the  prince  "  In  a  myry 
mornyng  of  May"  (261),  and  the  requiring  the  sages  to 
come  to  court  within  three  days  after  the  receipt  of  the  royal 
message  (312). 

Arbor  preserves  all  the  essential  motives  of  the  French. 
A  slight  abridgment  is  the  omission  of  mention  of  the  knight's 
going  away  for  the  sake  of  "  chaffare  "  (A,  E,  B,  Cy  L). 

Canis,  on  the  other  hand,  contains  a  number  of  interesting 
variations  :  (1)  The  infant  has  only  two  nurses  ;  in  A,  E,  B,  C, 
Ky  L,  there  are  three,— cf.  L17,  "Li  enfes  avoit  -m.  norrices." 
(2)  D  also  fails  to  catalogue  the  duties  of  the  nurses,  which  is 
otherwise  a  constant  feature  in  both  English  and  French  (cf. 
y,  K,  L  17).  (3)  A  third  curtailment  is  the  complaint  of  the 

1  See  the  preface  to  his  edition  of  the  D-text,  Percy  Soc.,  xvi,  p.  LXVIII. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  73 

knight  against  women  when  he  finds  his  child  alive.  (4)  A 
very  original  addition  is  that  the  knight  drowns  himself  for 
sorrow  in  a  fache-pole  in  his  garden  (883) ;  L  21  and  Y  have 
him  go  on  a  pilgrimage  by  way  of  atonement. 

Aper  exhibits  comparative  agreement  with  F,  except  in  the 
conclusion  which  has  been  much  abridged. 

The  tale  medicus  is  very  much  condensed.  The  ton-motif 
is  cancelled  altogether  (L  28  f.,  A  1142  f.),  and  there  are 
numerous  less  important  omissions:  e.g.  (1)  mention  byname 
of  the  Earl  of  Navern  ( F,  L  27,  "  li  quens  de  Namur  ") ;  (2) 
the  cure  of  the  invalid  (F,  "beef's  flesh/7  etc. ;  L  27,  "char 
de  buef");  (3)  specific  allusion  to  the  prince  as  an  avetrol 
(L  27,  avoltres, — so  F,  except  F,  C  read  horcopp).  A  single 
addition  is  that  the  queen  of  Hungary  is  accompanied  by  ten 
or  twelve  maids  (1082). 

Gaza.  Omissions  are  (1)  the  names  of  both  emperor  and 
tower  (Octavian  and  Oressent,  respectively,  in  J,  Ar,  E,  j£,  C9 
L  30),  and  (2)  the  warden's  finding  the  headless  body,  and  his 
endeavor  to  identify  the  same, — a  feature  which  is  preserved 
and  worked  out  in  detail  in  all  other  related  versions  (cf.  L 
32  f.,  A  1319-48). 

Puteus.  (1)  No  mention  of  the  Roman  law  until  late  in 
the  narrative  (1413  f.) ;  in  other  versions  it  appears  at  the 
beginning  of  the  story  ( F,  L  36).  (2)  This  law  is  not  alluded 
to  at  all  as  curfew  (cf.  L  36,  coevrefeu).  (3)  The  wife  makes 
no  threat  of  drowning  herself  in  the  well  ( F,  L  37).  (4)  The 
husband's  excuse  for  being  out  thus  late  is  that  he  thought  he 
heard  a  spangel,  which  he  had  "  mysde  al  thys  seven-nyght " 
(1448-9). 

Senescalcus.  (1)  Much  abridgment  of  the  scene  between 
the  seneschal  and  his  wife  on  the  former's  announcing  his 
infamous  purpose.  (2)  Abridgment  also  of  the  early  morning 
scene,  notably  the  dialogue  between  the  king  and  his  seneschal. 
(3)  An  omitted  detail  is  the  bestowing  the  wife  on  a  rich  earl, 
which  is  found  in  F,  but  which  seems  not  to  have  been  in 
the  Old  French. 


74  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

Tentamina  variations  are  (1)  the  wife  herself  contrives  the 
"  tentamina."  In  all  the  related  versions,  they  are  proposed 
by  the  mother.  (2)  A  brother  of  the  sage  assists  in  the  blood- 
letting. Omissions  are  (1)  mention  of  the  sage's  having  sur- 
vived two  wives  (cf.  L  43  and  all  M.  E.  versions  except  F), 
and  (2)  the  wife's  third  visit  to  her  mother,  and  the  implied 
r6le  of  the  parish-priest  of  the  original  and  the  remaining 
M.  E.  versions. 

Virgilius.  (1)  A  striking  and  altogether  unwarranted  alter- 
ation is  the  substitution  of  Merlin  for  Vergil  (1880).  (2) 
Allied  with  this  is  the  very  radical  variation — probably  the 
most  radical  of  all  in  D — in  the  omission  of  the  entire  first 
episode,  the  incident  of  the  mirror-pillars  alone  being  preserved. 
Other  less  striking  variations  are  (3)  the  two  coffers  of  gold 
are  buried,  not  as  in  the  remaining  M.  E.  versions,  at  the  gates 
of  the  city,  but  in  "  lyttyl  pyttys  twaye"  (1926);  (4)  the 
emperor  is  not  asked  to  divide  half  with  the  brothers,  nor  does 
he  accompany  the  latter  to  their  place  of  digging,  but  sends 
one  of  his  men  with  them  (1932  f.,  1950) ;  (5)  the  brothers  set 
fire  to  the  foundation  of  the  pillar  before  going  to  their  inn, 
and  even  visit  the  emperor  to  bid  farewell  before  taking  final 
leave  of  the  city;  (6)  instead  of  pouring  molten  gold  down  the 
emperor's  throat,  a  ball  of  gold  is  ground  to  powder  and  his 
eyes,  nose,  and  throat  are  filled  with  it  (2067-71). 

Avis.  Instead  of  the  pie  of  other  texts  we  have  a  popynjay 
(2145),  and  (2)  instead  of  the  maid,  a  boy  as  the  wife's  assist- 
ant. (3)  Only  the  boy  goes  on  the  house-top.  (4)  He  breaks 
great  blown  bladders  in  imitation  of  thunder.  (5)  There  is 
no  mention  of  the  husband's  discovery  of  the  wife's  deception. 

Sapientes.  Important  omissions  are  the  search  for,  and  find- 
ing of,  the  child  Merlin  and  the  incident,  dependent  thereon, 
of  the  interpretation  of  the  dream. 

Vidua.  (1)  An  interesting  invention  is  the  husband's  burial 
"  withouten  the  toun  at  a  chapel "  (2484),  since,  in  view  of 
the  manner  in  which  he  met  his  death,  "In  kyrkejarde  men 
wolde  hym  nout  delve "  (2482) ;  A*  80,  simply  au  moustier.  (2) 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  75 

The  wife  herself  kindles  the  fire  and  makes  her  bed  beside  the 
grave  (2502  f.),  having  first  sent  after  her  clothes  (2500).  (3) 
The  knight  is  permitted  to  enter  immediately  on  knocking ; 
in  other  texts,  he  has  to  repeat  his  knocking  and  petitions. 
(4)  The  wife  does  not,  as  in  other  texts,  propose  matrimony 
to  the  knight. 

Roma.  (1)  There  are  three  heathen  kings  instead  of  seven 
as  in  the  original  (2649).  (2)  The  page  is  not  named  till 
towards  the  end  of  the  story,  when  he  is  called  Gynever  (2730); 
cf.  A*  86,  Genus;  A,  B,  C,  F,  Gemes;  E,  B,  Junyus;  Ar. 
Julius. 

Inclusa.  This  story  presents  remarkable  agreement  with 
F,  the  chief  and  only  important  variation  being  the  temporary 
omission  of  the  knight's  explanation  of  the  reason  for  his  flight 
from  his  native  laud  in  that  he  had  slain  there  another  knight. 
This  excuse  is  employed  later  in  the  story,  but  originates  with 
the  lady  (2961). 

Vaticinium.  (1)  The  father  also  has  the  power  of  inter- 
preting the  language  of  birds  (3138).  (2)  The  name  of  the 
father  is  omitted  (A*  101,  7T4919,  Girart  le  fits  Thierri;  B, 
C,  Fj  Jerrard  Noryes  sone;  E,  Barnarde  Norysshe),  and  there 
is  otherwise  much  condensation  of  the  narrative. 

Such  are  some  of  the  variations  of  D.  And  these  are  doubt- 
less what  led  Wright  to  his  classification  of  this  version.  But 
since  all  these  variations  are  peculiar  to  D  they  can  in  no  way 
be  held  to  confirm  Wright's  view.  They  are  in  fact  of  no 
value  whatever  in  determining  D's  relations,  except  in  so  far 
as  they  put  one  on  guard  against  laying  too  much  stress  on 
any  agreements  which  D  may  be  found  to  have  exclusively  in 
common  with  any  particular  group  or  version. 

Wright's  theory,  however,  does  seem  to  derive  some  sup- 
port from  another  quarter,  namely  that  Z),  in  a  number  of 
instances,  preserves  the  Old  French  more  faithfully  than  any 
other  M.  E.  version.1  These  are  as  follows :  (1)  In  senescalcus, 
the  king  rules  in  Apulia  (so  L  39);  in  F,  he  rules  over  both 

1  Wright,  however,  has  not  adduced  any  of  this  evidence. 


76  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

Apulia  and  Calabria.  (2)  In  sapientes,  after  all  the  sages 
have  been  slain  and  the  cauldron  has  become  clear,  Merlin  and 
Herod  ride  out  of  the  city  by  way  of  testing  results ;  the  king, 
on  reaching  the  gate,  regains  his  sight  (D  2409  f.,  L  63). 
Other  M.  E.  texts  omit  this  feature.  A  less  significant  agree- 
ment of  D  with  the  Old  French  in  the  same  story  is  that  the 
king  remains  blind  from  the  time  he  goes  outside  the  city 
gates,  where  F  represents  him  as  being  blind  only  when  with- 
out the  city,  and  as  always  recovering  his  sight  on  his  return. 
(3)  D  2803,  A*  89  have  the  knight  in  indusa  travel  three 
weeks  in  a  fruitless  search  for  the  lady  of  his  dream.  Ar,  E, 
C,  F  have  him  travel  three  months, — B,  one  month}-  (4)  In 
vatidnium,  the  father  and  the  son,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
story,  are  on  their  way  to  visit  a  hermit  on  an  island  in  the 
sea  (3141  f.).  This  feature  is  suppressed  in  the  remaining  M. 
E.  versions,  but  appears  in  all  the  important  O.  F.  versions ; 
.A*  98,  "  por  aler  a  -i-  reclus  qui  estoit  seur  -i-  rochier,"  and 
K  4693-4,  "  Naiant  en  vont  a  un  renclus,  ki  en  un  rochier  ses- 
toit  mis."  (5)  In  the  same  story  (3327),  the  city  to  which 
the  father  comes  in  his  poverty,  is,  in  agreement  with  A*  101, 
Plede  (cf.  also  JT4918,  "Ales  moi  tost  au  plaseis," — which 
Godefroy  identifies  with  plaisseis  =  cldture).  The  city  is  not 
named  in  Y. 

Of  these  agreements  two  (the  2d  and  4th)  are  very  signifi- 
cant, and  serve  at  least  to  show  that  D  was  not  based  on  the 
common  original  (y)  of  the  six  versions  so  far  treated.  They 
do  not  prove,  however,  that  D  goes  back  to  the  French  unre- 
lated with  these,  for  there  still  remains  the  possibility  of  a 
connection  of  D  with  y  through  a  common  M.  E.  original  (x), 
which  y  does  not  for  these  features  faithfully  reproduce.  Yet 
it  must  be  granted  that  this  explanation  would  seem  to 
have  little  in  its  favor  could  not  some  agreements  of  D 
with  certain  members  of  Fas  against  the  French  be  shown. 

1  The  Italian  prose  text  published  by  Varnhagen  agrees  here  with  the 
M.  E.  versions ;  see  p.  36,  tre  mesi. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  77 

Among  these  agreements  are :  (1)  with  A  and  (7,  in  canis, 
in  that  the  knight  cuts  out  the  dog's  rygge-boon  (D  859) ;  in 
the  French,  he  cuts  off  his  head  (L  20,  "  si  li  cope  la  teste  ") ; 
(2)  in  ape?-,  with  (7,  in  that  the  herd  fills  his  hood  with  haws 
(jD  945),  A,  E,  B,  L,  his  laps;  (3)  in  Virgilius,  with  the  entire 
group  Y,  in  that  there  are  only  two  brothers  who  bring  about 
the  overthrow -of  the  image  (D  1899) ;  L  51,  on  the  contrary, 
"•in-  bachelors";  (4)  in  vidua,  with  F,  A*  84,  in  that  the 
wife  is  called  on  to  knock  out  only  two  of  her  husband's  teeth 
(D  2592);  according  to  A,  Ar,  E,  B}  C,  all  are  knocked  out; 
see  also  D*  39,  toutes  les  dens;  (5)  in  indusa,  (a)  with  the 
entire  group  Y,  in  the  substitution  of  Hungary  for  the  Mon- 
bergier  of  A*  89,  K,  as  the  land  whence  the  knight  comes  (D 
2787),  (b)  with  E,  F  in  the  substitution  of  Poyle  for  the 
illogical  Hungary  of  the  French  (A*  89,  K)  as  the  land  into 
which  the  knight  finally  comes  (D  2805),  and  (c)  with  Fm 
the  additional  detail,  that  the  earl  had  been  warred  against 
for  two  years  (D  2849). 

But  here  it  is  possible  that  these  agreements  were  accidental. 
Furthermore,  inasmuch  as  the  ultimate  O.  F.  original  of  the 
M.  E.  versions  has  in  all  probability  been  lost,1  it  may  be 
argued  that  those  features  in  which  D  and  other  M.  E. 
versions  are  in  accord  as  contrasted  with  the  Old  French  may 
have  been  just  those  in  which  their  common  original  varied 
from  the  known  O.  F.  manuscripts.  Hence  no  final  conclu- 
sion may  be  had  from  this  quarter. 

There  remains  the  evidence  of  phraseology  and  of  rime,  and 
it  is  in  this  that  we  have  a  final  proof  of  the  error  of  Wright's 
assumption. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  parallel  passages  revealed  by 
a  comparison  of  A  and  E  with  D.2  Others  might  be  cited, 
but  these  will  suffice  for  the  purpose. 

1  See  the  section  devoted  to  a  study  of  the  source  of  the  M.  E.  versions. 
*  Where  A  is  fragmentary,  E  has  been  selected  in  preference  to  Ar,  since 
the  latter  is  also  largely  fragmentary. 


78  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 


D.  E. 

In  Rome  was  an  emperour,  Sum  tyme  J>ere  was  an  Emperoure, 

A  man  of  swyth  mikil  honur.  That    ladde   hys    lyfe    with   moche 

Is  name  was  Deocclicius.  honowre. 

Hys  name  was  Dioclidan. 

(1-2,4)  (3-5) 

Uppon  his  sone  that  was  so  bolde,  The  chylde  wax  to  -vii-  yere  olde. 

And  was  bot  sevene  wyntur  olde.  Wyse  of  speche  ande  dedys  bolde. 

(13-14)  (15-16) 

The  emperour  for-thoght  sore  Hys  ffadyr  was  olde  and  ganne  to 

Tha  the  child  ware  sette  to  lore.  hoore, 

His  sone  thoo  he  sette  to  lore. 

(15-16)  (19-20) 

Whilk  of  thaym  he  myght  take  To  hem  he  thought  his  sone  take 

Hys  sone  a  wyes  man  to  make.  Forto  knowe  the  letters  blacke. 

(23-24)  (23-24) 

The  thirde  a  lene  man  was.  The  -lii'  mayster  was  a  lyght  man. 

(49)  (51) 

And  was  callid  Lentulus.  His  name  was  callyd  lentyllous. 

Hee  sayed  to  the  emperour  thus.  He  sayde  a-non  to  the  kyng. 

(51-2)  (54-5) 

And  er  ther  passe  thre  and  fyve,  Uppon  payne  of  lemys  and  lyfe, 

Yf  he  have  wyt  and  his  on  lyve,  I  shalle  teche  hym  in  yerys  -v. 

(55-6)  (59-60) 

And  inred  man  he  was,  The  -mi-  mayster  a  redman  was. 

And  was  callid  Maladas.  Men  hym  callyd  Malquydras. 

(61-2)  (61-62) 

The  sevent  mayister  answerd  thus,  The  -vii-  mayster  hette  Maxious, 

And  was  hoten  Marcius.  A  ryght  wyse  man  and  a  vertuous. 

(91-2)  (99-100) 

D.  A. 

Evermore  wil  he  wooke,  Whan  o  maister  him  let,  another  him 
When  on  levede,  anothir  tooke.  tok  ; 

He  was  ever  upon  his  bok. 
(159-60)  (189-90) 

By  God,  maister,  I  am  noght  dronken,  Other  ich  am  of  wine  dronke, 

Yf  the  rofe  his  nougt  sonken.  Other  the  firmament  is  i-sonke. 

(209-10)  (211-2) 

Hym  byfel  a  harde  caes.  Ac  sone  hem  fil  a  ferli  cas. 

(222)  (222) 

And  to  have  anothir  wyf,  Ye  libbeth  an  a  lenge  lif : 

For  to  ledde  with  thy  lif.  Ye  sholde  take  a  gentil  wif. 

(231-2)  (227-8) 


THE   SEVEN   SAGES. 


79 


A  good  childe  and  a  faire, 
That  sal  be  oure  bothe  ayere. 
For  sothe,  sire,  I  hold  hym  myn, 
.4/30  wel  as  thou  dost  thyn. 

(267-70) 

Than  sayd  mayster  Baucillas, 
"For  soth  this  his  wondir  cas: 
Tharefore  take  counsel  sone 
What  his  best  to  don, 
The  childe  answerd  ther  he  stood, 
"  I  wyle  gyf  sou  counsel  good  ; 
Seven  dayes  I  mot  forbere 
That  I  ne  gyf  no  answere ; 

(360-3,  368-71) 
I  schal  saue  thy  lyf  a  daye. 

(381) 

Thus  they  were  at  on  alle, 
And  wenten  agayen  into  the  halle. 

(388-9) 

By  hym  that  made  sone  and  mone, 
He  ne  hade  nevere  with  me  done. 

(464-5) 

"  Kys  me,  yf  thy  wylle  bee, 
Alle  my  lyfe  hys  longe  on  the." 

(474-5) 
Callid  to  him  a  tormentour. 

(509) 

Also  mote  bytide  the 
As  dyde  the  fyne  appul-tre. 

(582-3) 

Than  sayde  Baucillas, 
"A  !  sire  emperour,  alas  ! " 

(688-9) 

And  hir  clothes  al  to-rent, 
Afte  the  thef  wold  hir  have  shent. 

(700-1) 

That  knave  kest  hym  frnyt  y-nowe, 
And  clam  a-doune  fra  bough  to  boghe. 

(972-3) 

And  rent  hys  wombe  with  the  knyf, 
And  bynam  the  bore  hys  lyf. 

(982-3) 

"A  !  sire,"  quod  mayster  Ancilles, 
"  God  almighty  send  us  pees  ! " 

(1018-9) 


Hit  is  thi  sone,  and  thin  air ; 
A  wis  child,  and  a  fair. 
For  thi  sone  I  tel  mine, 
Alse  wel  als  ton  dost  thine. 

(283-4,  289-90) 
Than  seide  master  Bancillas 
Here  is  now  a  ferli  cas  I 
Counseil  we  al  herupon; 
How  that  we  mai  best  don. 
Than  seide  the  schild,  Saunz  fail, 
Ich  you  right  wil  counseil, 
This  seven  daies  I  n'el  nowt  speke; 
Nowt  a  word  of  mi  mowht  breke; 

(371-8) 
I  schal  the  waranti  o  dai. 

(389) 

With  this  word,  thai  ben  alle 
Departed,  and  comen  to  halle. 

(401-2) 

I  swere  bi  sonne  and  bi  mone 
With  me  ne  hadde  he  never  to  done. 

(451-2) 

Kes  me,  leman,  and  loue  me, 
And  I  thi  soget  wil  i-be. 

(457-8) 
And  cleped  forht  a  turmentour. 

(498) 

Ase  wel  mot  hit  like  the 
Als  dede  the  pinnote  tre. 

(543-4) 

Than  seide  maister  Bancillas, 
Sire,  that  were  now  a  sori  cas. 

(683-4) 

Th'  emperour  saide,  I  fond  hire  to- 
rent: 
Hire  her,  and  hire  face  i-schent ; 

(689-90) 

He  kest,  the  bor  doun  hawes  anowe 
And  com  himself  doun  bi  a  bowe. 

(921-2) 

The  herd  thous  with  his  long  knif 
Biraft  the  bor  of  his  lif. 

(933-4) 

Than  saide  maister  Ancilles, 
For  Godes  love,  sire,  hold  thi  pes. 

(977-8) 


80 


KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 


That  56  bytyde  swilk  a  cas 

As  bytyde  Ypocraa, 

That  slow  hys  cosyn  withouten  gylt. 

(1026-8) 

With  my  lordefor  to  play, 
And  love  wax  bytwen  us  twey. 

(1100-1) 

Oppon  a  day  thay  went  to  pleye, 
He  and  hys  cosyn  thay  twey. 

(1118-9) 
And  mad  hym  myry,  and  spendid 

faste, 

Al  the  wylle  that  hit  wolde  laste. 
He  that  lokyd  the  tresour, 
Come  a  day  into  the  tour. 

(1220-3) 
Bot  hastilich  smy  t  of  my  hede. 

(1255) 

Byfore  the  dore,  as  I  sow  telle, 
Thare  was  a  mykyl  deppe  welle. 

(1381-2) 

To  do  thy  wyl  by  a-night, 
Yf  1  schal  helle  the  aryght. 

(1546-7) 

Now  he  slakys  to  lygge  above ; 
I  wyl  have  another  love. 

(1686-7) 

Er  the  myrrour  be  broght  a-doune, 
And  than  gyf  us  oure  warrysoun. 

(1906-7) 

And  sayed,  we  wyte,  sire  emperour, 
About  this  cite  gret  tresour. 

(1932-3) 
And  dolvyn  a   lytyl   withinne  the 

grounde, 
And  the  tresour  was  sone  founde. 

(1952-3) 

The  ton  sayed,  sire  emperour, 
Undir  the  pyler  that  berys  merour. 

(2002-3) 

Gladlich,  sayed  scho, 
The  bettyr  yf  hyt  wylle  bee. 

(2287-8) 
And  hadde  seven  clerkys  wyse, 

(2293) 


On  the  falle  swich  a  cas 
Als  fil  on  Ypocras  the  gode  clerk, 
That  slow  his  neveu  with  fals  werk. 
(994-6) 

With  mi  louerdfor  to  plai; 
And  so  he  dede,  mani  a  dai. 

(1083-4) 

So  bifel  upon  a  dai 
He  and  his  neveu  yede  to  plai. 

(1113-4) 

And  beren  hit  horn  wel  on  hast, 
And  maden  hem  large   whiles  hit 

last. 

Amorewe  aros  that  sinatour, 
And  sichen  to-bregen  his   louerdes 
tour. 

(1265-8) 
And  hastiliche  gird  of  min  heved. 

(1299) 

But  thou  me  in  lete,  ich  wille  telle, 
Ich  wille  me  drenchen  in  the  welle. 

(1463-4) 

Have  womman  to  pleie  aright, 
Yif  ye  wil  be  hoi  aplight. 

(1577-8) 

Ich  moste  have  som  other  love ! 
Nai,  dowter,  for  God  above ! 

(1753-4) 

Who  might  that  ymage  fel  adoun, 
He  wolde  him  yif  his  warisoun. 

(2029-30) 

And  said,  al  hail,  sir  emperour ! 
It  falleth  to  the  to  lof  tresour. 

(2049-50) 

And  ther  thai  doluen  in  the  gronde; 
A  riche  forcer  ther  thai  founde. 

(2079-80) 

Than  saide  the  elder  to  the  emperour, 

Under  the  ymage  that  halt  the  mirour. 

(2091-2) 

Bletheliche,  sire,  so  mot  ich  the, 
So  that  ye  wolde  the  better  be. 

(2337-8) 
He  hadde  with  him  seven  wise. 

(2343) 


THK   SEVEN   SAGES. 


81 


Who  so  anny  swevene  by  nyght, 
O  morne  when  the  day  was  bryght. 

(2296-7) 

The  einperour  and  Merlyn  anoon 
Into  the  charabyr  thay  gonne  gone; 
(2339-40) 

Hyt  was  a  knyght,  a  riche  schyreve, 
That  was  lot  hys  wyf  to  greve. 
He  sate  a  daye  by  hys  wyf, 
And  in  hys  honde  helde  a  knyf. 

(2471-4) 

Bot  saved  for  non  worldlys  wyne 
Schulde  no  man  parte  horn  a-twyne. 

(2487-8) 

In  hyr  hoond  scho  took  a  stoon, 
And  knockyd  out  twa  teth  anoon ! 


(2601-2) 


D. 


Made  to  fle  with  hys  boste 
Thre  kyngys  and  hare  hoste. 

(2732-3) 
The  knyght  that  met  that  sweven  at 

nyght 

Of  that  lady  was  so  bright,  .  . . 
Kyght  a  lytyl  fram  the  toure 
Thare  was  the  lady  of  honour, 
And  ate  the  wyndow  the  lady  he  see. 
(2822-3,  2826-7,  2831) 
He  bytoke  undyr  hys  hond, 
And  made  hym  stywarde  of  al  hys  londe. 
Oppon  a  day  he  went  to  playe, 
TJndir  the  tour  he  made  hys  waye. 


(2869-72) 

Lenand  to  the  mykyl  toure, 
To  do  in  hys  tresour. 
Thorow  a  q weyntyse  he  thout  to  wyne 
The  lady  that  was  loke  there-inne. 

(2895-8) 


That  who  that  mette  a  sweven  anight, 

He  scholde  come  amorewe,  aplight. 

(2349-50) 

The  emperour  him  ladde  anon, 
Into  his  chaumbre  of  lira  and  ston; 

(2453-4) 

Sire,  he  saide,  thou  might  me  leue, 
Hit  was  a  knight,  a  riche  scherreue, 
So,  on  a  dai,  him  and  his  wif 
Was  i-youen  a  newe  knif ; 

(2563-4,  2569-70) 
The  leuedi  saide,  for  no  wenne, 
Sche  ne  wolde  neuer  wende  thenne. 

(2581-2) 
Than  wil  ich,  she  saide,  and  tok  a 

ston, 
And  smot  hem  out  euerichon. 

(2713-4) 


E. 


And  made  more  noyse  and  boste 
Thenne  wolde  a  kyng  and  hys  hoste. 
(2812-3) 
And   soo   there  come  rydyng  thys 

knyght 

That  had  sought  the  lady  bryghte. 
He  lokyd  uppe  into  the  toure, 
And  say  that  lady  as  white  as  flowre; 
And  anon,  as  he  hyr  say, 

(2914-8) 
And  toke  hym  hys  goodys  in-to  hys 

hande, 
And  made  hym  sty  war  de  ouyr  alle  hys 

lande. 

So  oppon  a  day,  with  moche  honoure, 
The  knyght  come  playnge  by  the 

toure. 

(2944-7) 

To  make  a  chambyr  byfore  the  toure 
That  may  ben  for  my  honoure* 
Thenne  thought  he  uppon  sum  quent 

gynne 

Howe  he  myght  to  that  lady  wynne. 
(2962-3,  2968-9) 


82  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

Oppon  a  day  stylle  as  stoon  The  knyght  toke  workemen  a-non, 

He  sent  eftyr  masons  anoon.  And  made  a  chambyr  of  lyme  and 

8  ton. 

(2901-2)  (2966-7) 

And  sate  stille  and  made  hym  glade,  And  bade  hym  ete  and  be  glad, 

And  thus  hys  wyf  made  hym  made.  And  euyr  he  sat  as  he  were  mad. 

(3021-2)  (3110-1) 

Into  Plecie  when  he  was  comen,  Amorowe  the  kyng  thedyr  came, 

Ner  hysfadir  hys  in  was  nome.  And  with  hysfadyr  hys  in  he  name. 

To  mete  when  he  was  redy  to  gon,  He  and  hys  baronys  euerychone 

After  hys  fadir  he  sent  anoon.  Wente  to  mete  with  hym  a-non. 

(3336-9)  (3473-6) 

It  is  impossible  to  account  for  these  agreements  as  mere 
coincidences,  or  as  flowing  from  a  translation  from  the  same 
O.  F.  source.  Some  of  them  may  indeed  be,  and  doubtless 
are,  due  to  the  often  stereotyped  style,  or  the  fondness  for  like 
epithets  or  collocations  which  characterize  the  M.  E.  romance; 
but  all  of  them  cannot  be  so  explained.  They  warrant  this 
assumption  alone,  that  D  and  y  are  related  either  through 
the  derivation  of  one  from  the  other,  or  through  a  common 
M.  E.  original. 

And  inasmuch  as  D  cannot  have  been  based  on  y  or  on  any  of 
the  texts  which  have  developed  from  it,  since  in  all  the  latter 
some  of  the  O.  F.  features  are  lacking  which  are  preserved  in 
D, — or,  conversely,  y  on  Z),  in  view  of  the  very  many  inde- 
pendent variations  of  the  latter  where  y  is  faithful  to  the 
French,  we  can  only  conclude  that  both  y  and  D  go  back  to 
the  same  lost  M.  E.  version  x. 

\Ve  may  accordingly  sum  up  our  results  as  to  D  as  follows  : 

(1)  it  is  remarkably  free,  and  exhibits  many  unique  variations; 

(2)  it  does  not  represent  an  independent  translation  from  the 
French,  but  is  connected  with  at  least  six  other  M.  E.  versions 
through  a  common  M.  E.  source;  (3)  this  source  was  not  the 
same  as  the  more  immediate  common  original  of  these  six 
versions  (y),  but  was  a  version  one  or  more  stages  nearer  the 
Old  French. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  83 

As. — The  Asloan  version  is  at  present  inaccessible  in  the 
original  manuscript,1  and,  as  only  about  200  lines  of  it  have 
been  printed,2  any  discussion  of  its  relations  must  be  very 
unsatisfactory.  We  may  be  permitted,  however,  to  bring  to- 
gether the  few  facts  which  are  known  about  it,  and  to  draw 
from  these  such  conclusions  as  their  evidence  may  justify. 

From  the  descriptions  which  have  appeared,  it  is  established 
that  As,  so  far  as  it  is  not  fragmentary,  preserves  the  usual 
M.  E.  order  of  stories,  but  that  beyond  this  it  is,  in  many  respects, 
extremely  free.  The  names  of  the  sages  are  much  garbled, 
and  they  vary  in  the  introductory  enumeration  from  their 
form  in  the  stories  themselves.  They  are,  moreover,  in  no 
case  close  to  those  of  any  version  now  in  print,  or  to  those  of 
the  remaining  M.  E.  manuscripts. 

Avis,  too,  the  story  which  has  been  printed,  exhibits  very 
radical  variation  from  other  versions,  both  textually  and  as 
regards  incident.  There  are  apparent  no  significant  agree- 
ments in  rime  or  phraseology  with  any  other  M.  E.  version, 
while  two  new  episodes,3  well-known  in  other  collections,  but 
otherwise  foreign  to  the  Seven  Sages,  are  woven  into  the  narra- 
tive. And  there  are  other  variations,  besides,  such  as  the  intro- 
duction of  the  wife's  mother  as  a  go-between,  and  mention  of 
the  burgess's  name — first  Annabill,  later  Balan. 

But  none  of  these  serves  to  shed  any  light  on  the  question 
of  relationship.  All  the  new  features  of  As,  as  compared  with 
the  remaining  M.  E.  versions  and  the  accessible  Romance  ver- 
sions, are  peculiar  to  it,  and  hence  afford  no  grounds  for  deter- 
mining its  connections. 

1  As  already  stated  in  my  "  Word  of  Introduction  "  (p.  2),  Lord  Talbotde 
Malahide  declined  to  permit  my  consulting  this  manuscript.  His  reasons 
for  doing  so  are,  I  understand,  the  same  as  those  given  by  certain  other 
possessors  of  valuable  M.  E.  manuscripts,  for  which  I  beg  to  refer  to  Dr. 
Furnivall,  Temporary  Pref.  to  the  Six-Text  Ed.,  Chaucer  Soc.,  1868,  Pt.  I,  p.  6. 

*  In  a  contribution  by  Prof.  Varnhagen  (Englische  Studien,  xxv,  p. 
321  f.),  who  will  edit  the  text  for  the  Scottish  Text  Society. 

3  See  Englische  Studien,  xxv,  p.  322. 


84  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

Prof.  Varnhagen  claims  that  As  was  made  directly  from 
some  O.  F.  version,1  and  the  lack  of  textual  agreement  between 
it  and  other  M.  E.  versions  in  the  story  avis  may  seem  to  offer 
some  support  to  this  view, — but  by  no  means  necessarily,  since 
it  is  evident  that  the  author  of  As  worked  very  independently.2 
And  that  the  evidence  offered  by  Varnhagen  in  support  of  his 
claim,  viz.,  the  agreement  in  order  of  stories  with  the  O.  F. 
_4*-type,  is  not  adequate,  he  himself,  I  believe,  will  concede 
on  reconsideration. 

3.    Authorship  of  the  Middle  English  Versions. 

It  has  been  assumed  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  the  Eng- 
lish original  (x)  of  the  seven  M.  E.  manuscripts  A,  Ar,  E,  B,  F, 
(7,  and  D,  has  been  lost.  It  remains  to  inquire  when,  where, 
and  by  whom  this  original  was  made.  For  this  purpose  we 
unfortunately  have  almost  no  data  at  all,  and  can  only  resort 
to  indirections  to  find  directions  out. 

(1)  For  the  determining  the  date  of  x  the  Auchinleck  MS. 
(A)  is  of  first  importance.  This  manuscript  dates  from  around 
the  year  1330;  this,  then,  must  be  the  superior  limit  for  the 
dating  of  y.  And  since,  as  has  been  shown,  A  was  not  derived 
directly  from  y,  but  rests  in  all  probability  on  a  lost  manuscript 
r,  which  may  have  been  based  on  y  directly  or  through  an  inter- 
vening manuscript,  and  since,  moreover,  it  is  highly  credible 
that  A  had  already  been  composed  some  time  before  the  Auch- 
inleck copy  was  made,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  date  of  y 
would  fall  later  than  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century. 

And  inasmuch,  now,  as  y  cannot  have  been  this  parent  version, 
since  D,  though  closely  akin  to  it,  was  neither  based  immedi- 
ately on  it  nor  on  any  of  its  derivatives,  but  was  connected  with 
it  through  a  common  source,  which  source  we  may  assume  to 
be  either  identical  with,  or  based  directly  on,  the  translation 

*  Ibid.,  xxv,  p.  322. 

*  F  offers  even  more  radical  variation  from  other  M.  E.  versions  in  some 
of  its  stories  than  does  As  in  avis. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  85 

from  the  French,  it  is  necessary  to  assign  to  this  parent  ver- 
sion a  date  before  the  year  1300.  The  year  1275  would,  it 
is  believed,  represent  a  conservative  conjecture. 

(2)  Available  material  for  determining  the  place  of  transla- 
tion of  this  parent  text  is  somewhat  more  satisfactory.     Of  the 
entire  group  of  seven  versions  which  have  been  shown  to  be 
based  on  x,  only  one  is  in  the  Northern  dialect,  and  this  (C) 
is  of  comparatively  late  date.     One  other  (D)  belongs  to  the 
south-east  Midland,  while  the  rest  (A,  Ar,  E,  B,  F)  belong  to 
the  South, — a  fact  which  well  justifies  the  assumption  that  x 
was  also  Southern.     Furthermore,  inasmuch  as  three  of  these 
versions  (A,  Ar,  E)  possess  marked  Kentish  features,  and  two 
others  ($,  F)  show  a  Kentish  influence,  but  less  marked,  we 
seem  justified  in  a  further  restriction  to  the  eastern  South — 
Kent  or  its  neighborhood — as  the  home  of  the  parent  text.    It 
is  further  confirmatory  of  this  view  that  just  those  versions 
(Ar,  E)  which  are  most  faithful  to  x  are  most  distinctly 
Kentish.1 

(3)  But  while  we  are  thus  justified  in  indulging  in  conject- 
ure as  to  the  time  and  place  of  composition  of  x,  in  the  mat- 
ter of  its  authorship  we  have  no  grounds  for  such  an  indulgence. 
The  nature  of  the  subject  might  establish  a  slight  probability 
in  favor  of  lay  authorship,  but  not  at  all  necessarily ;  and  the 
same  is  true  of  the  references  to  priests,  in  tentamina  and  avis, 
as   adulterate   lovers, — especially  since  in  the  only  story  in 
which  it  is  a  constant  feature  (tentamina),  it  was  also  in  the 
Old  French ;  so  that,  in  respect  to  this  side  of  the  problem 
in  hand,  we  have,  for  the  present  at  least,  and  probably  for  all 
time,  to  content  us  with  absolute  ignorance. 

With  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  texts  which  have  been 
preserved,  we  are  equally  at  a  loss  for  definite  information. 

An  ingenious  and  praiseworthy  effort  has  been  made  by  Dr. 
Kolbing  to  demonstrate  a  community  of  authorship  for  the 
^L-text  and  the  Auchinleck  texts  of  the  Arthur  and  Merlin, 

1(rhe  dialect  of  D — southeast  Midland — also  offers  support  to  this  view. 


86  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

Kyng  Alisaunder,  and  Richard  Coer  de  Lion ; l  but  without 
meaning  to  discredit  his  conclusions  in  general,  it  is  necessary, 
we  regret  to  say,  to  reject  them  in  so  far  as  they  concern  the 
Seven  Sages.  Kolbing's  argument  is  made  on  the  basis  of 
features  (rime,  language,  etc.)  exclusively,  or  almost  exclu- 
sively, peculiar  to  these  poems.  The  only  part  of  his  argu- 
ment which  holds  is  that  which  concerns  the  expletives  cert 
and  vair.  These  appear  only  in  the  J.-text,  being  either  orig- 
inal with  it,  or,  if  in  y,  having  been  displaced  in  the  remaining 
texts  by  other  rimes.  On  the  other  hand,  of  the  18  rimes 
which  Kolbing  cites2  (one  of  which,  2803-4,  bataille:  mer- 
vaile,  should  be  cancelled,  since  it  is  taken  from  C),  a  com- 
parison with  the  remaining  members  of  Fshows  12  to  reappear 
in  the  corresponding  lines  in  Ar,  9  in  E,  etc.  The  evidence 
to  which  Kolbing  attaches  most  importance,  that  of  certain 
textual  agreements  between  Arthur  and  Merlin  (1201  f.)  and 
A  (2389  f.),3  is  likewise  not  valid,  as  is  manifest  from  the 
following  parallel  comparison  of  these  passages  with  Ar  and 
E.  Compare 

1  Merlin  in  J>e  strete  J>o  pleyd,  '  On  a  dai  J>ai  com  ber  Merlin  pleid, 

And  on  of  his  felawes  him  trayd.'         And  on  of  his  felawes  him  traid.' 

(A.  M.  1201-2).  (A  2389-90). 

with 

'  So  >ei  come  |>eir  J>e  child  played,  'Thenne  come  they  thorowe  happe 
And  on  of  his  felawes  hym  by  trayed.'  there  he  playde, 

One  of  his  felowys  hym  myssayde.' 
(Ar  1511-2).  (E  2437-8). 

Compare  further,  as  against  his  citation  of 

'Foule  schrewe  fram  ous  go  ! '  'And  cleped  him  schrewe  faderles.' 

'  pou  hast  yseyd  to  loude  J>i  roun.'  'Al  to  loude  f>ou  spok  bi  latin.' 

pat  haj>  me  sougt  al  Hs  jer.'  '  pat  han  me  sought  al  fram  Rcme.' 
(A.  M.  1204,  18,  20).  (A  2392,  6,  8). 

1  Arthur  and  Merlin,  Leipzig,  1890,  p.  LX  f. 

f  Ibid.,  p.  LXXXII.  3  Ibid.,  p.  civ. 


THE   SEVEN   SAGES.  87 

the  following  from  Ar  and  E: 

'And  clepyd  hym  schrewe  faderlese.'  'And  calde  the  chylde  fadyrles.' 

'  To  loude  Jx>u  spake  by  latyn.' 

1  pat  haue  me  soujjt  fro  gret  Rome.'  '  That  have  Bought  me  fro  Rome.' 

(Ar  1514,  18,  20).  (#2440,6). 

From  these  it  is  evident  that  any  inference  as  to  A'a  author- 
ship made  on  this  basis  will  apply  equally  as  well  to  Ar  and 
E.  Accordingly  the  parallels  pointed  out  by  Kolbing  must 
either  be  explained  as  accidental,  or  as  traceable  either  to  an 
influence  of  Arthur  and  Merlin  on  the  source  of  A,  Ar,  and  E, 
or,  conversely,  of  some  one  of  these  on  the  Arthur  and  Merlin. 

4.   Source  of  the  Middle  English  Versions. 

The  question  of  the  ultimate  source  of  the  M.  E.  versions 
has,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  been  settled  by  Petras.1  We 
need  only  present  here  his  general  argument  and  his  conclu- 
sion, inserting  where  deemed  expedient  additional  proofs,  and 
adding  here  and  there  details  which  he  has  omitted. 

But  first  of  all  it  is  necessary  to  state  that  such  expressions 
(which  Petras  [p.  32]  inclines  to  accept  as  evidence)  as  A  2771, 
' So  seigh  ]?e  rime'2  (to  which  add  .F1690,  'as  seyj>  J>e  ryme') 
proves  nothing,  for  by  a  like  reasoning  we  might,  on  the  basis 
of  Ar  1906,  '  as  it  saty  in  latyn/  prove  a  Latin  source  for  the 
M.  E.  versions.  It  is  not  on  such  formulae  that  the  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  a  metrical  original  of  the  lost  M.  E. 
original  must  repose;  this  must  rather  rest  on  the  fact  that 

1  See  his  dissertation,  p.  31  f.  Our  investigation  must  differ  from  his, 
however,  in  that  we  are  concerned  only  with  the  source  of  the  parent  ver- 
sion, x  (As  being  disregarded),  while  Petras  has  assumed  each  of  four  ver- 
sions (A,  C,  jP,  _D)  to  be  independent  translations  from  the  French.  Since, 
however,  he  begins  with  the  assumption  that  the  same  O.  F.  version  was 
the  source  of  all  these,  his  argument  is  essentially  the  same  as  ours. 

2 References  to  source  in  the  M.  E.  versions  are  numerous:  A  317,  1245, 
2766,  2770;  Ar  1900,  1906,  2206,  2261,  2442;  #1253,  2779,  2784,  3445; 
£295,  1235;  I?7  928,  1683,  1690,  1973;  C  622,  1324;  D  1385,  1520,  2690, 
2922. 


88  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

this  original  (x)  was  itself  in  verse,  and,  hence  probably  made 
from  a  metrical  text, — and  that  this  does  not  permit  of  any 
definite  conclusion  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  add. 

It  is  not  improbable,  however,  that  this  original  of  x  was, 
like  itself,  composed  of  octosyllabic  couplets,  and  it  is  needless 
to  state  that  it  was  in  the  French  language. 

There  exist  three  O.  F.  metrical  versions, — the  Dolopathos, 
the  Keller  text  (K),  and  the  fragmentary  version  C*.  The 
first  of  these,  the  Dolopaihos,  must,  for  obvious  reasons,  play 
no  part  in  this  investigation.  The  unique  version  D*  should, 
however,  since  it  represents  a  prosing  of  a  lost  metrical  ver- 
sion, receive  equal  attention  with  K  and  (7*.1 

The  only  one  of  this  group  which  has  ever  been  proposed 
as  a  possible  source  of  the  M.  E.  versions  is  K;  but  a  com- 
parison of  the  two  types  as  regards  order  of  stories 2  reveals  a 
considerable  difference  between  them,  only  ten  stories  (1,  2,  4, 
6,  8,  10,  11,  12,  14,  15)  having  the  same  position  in  each. 
Such  a  comparison,  however,  while  bearing  with  it  much 
weight,  can  in  no  wise  be  accepted  as  determining,  as  it  would 
be  quite  natural  for  the  redactor,  or  even  the  translator,  to 
change  about  the  stories  at  will,  either  with  artistic  purpose  or 
with  a  view  to  making  his  source  less  apparent.  Hence  the 
safest  test  of  relationship  should  be  from  the  consideration  of 
content,  rather  than  of  order  of  stories.  And  it  is  on  this  basis 
that  Petras's  comparison  has  been  made.  The  Cotton- Auchin- 
leck  (C-A),  or  Weber,  text  he  finds  to  contain  only  460  lines 
which  could  be  possible  translations  from  the  Keller  text.8 
And  since  the  latter  contains  over  5000  lines,  it  is  not  probable 
that  even  numerous  intermediate  redactions  could  have  made 
such  a  difference.  Besides  this,  there  are  many  variations  in 
incident,  all  which  unite  in  making  it  extremely  improbable 
that  K  was  used  by  the  English  translator. 

1  For  the  Dolopathos,  K,  C*,  and  D*,  see  the  chapter  on  "  The  Romance 
in  France  and  Italy." 

1  For  the  order  of  stories  in  the  various  sub-types  of  the  Western  group, 
see  our  comparative  table  on  page  35. 

3  See  p.  33  of  his  dissertation. 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  89 

The  fragmentary  text  (7*,  though  differing  somewhat  from 
JTin  order  of  stories,  seems,  nevertheless,  to  be  much  nearer 
to  it  than  it  is  to  the  English. 

The  prose  version  Z>*,  representing  a  lost  metrical  version 
F,  exhibits  still  less  agreement  with  the  M.  E.  type,  and 
possesses  many  unique  features.  In  the  content  of  its  stories, 
however,  it  is  comparatively  close  to  K,  so  that  in  denying 
the  claims  for  it,  the  legitimacy  of  any  claim  for  .D*  is  also 
denied. 

JT,  C*,  and  D*  having  been  eliminated  from  the  problem,  it 
is  necessary  to  conclude  that  the  O.  F.  original,  if  metrical, 
has  been  lost.  It  remains  to  show  whether  or  not  the  M.  E. 
parent  text  was  based  on  any  of  the  prose  texts  which  have 
come  down  to  us,  or,  at  least,  which  one  of  them  nearest 
approximates  the  lost  original. 

The  most  widely  known  of  the  prose  versions,  the  Historic*, 
must  be  ruled  out  at  once,  since  Paris  has  shown  that  the 
earliest  date  which  can  be  given  it  is  around  the  year  1330, 
or  some  time  after  the  composition  of  the  derivative  M.  E. 
version  A.  Other  circumstances,  such  as  the  order  of  stories, 
the  introduction  of  amatores,  and  the  amicws-legeud,  as  well 
as  the  fusion  of  Roma  and  senescalcus,  together  with  its  many 
modern  touches,  all  unite  in  invalidating  any  claim  for  H. 

The  Scala  Coeli  (S)  also  exhibits  many  features  at  variance 
with  the  M.  E.  type,  and  its  two  new  stories,  filia  and  noverca, 
are  sufficient  to  exclude  it  from  the  list  of  possibilities. 

Likewise  the  first  Leroux  de  Lincy  (L)  version,  although 
it  agrees  very  closely  with  the  Middle  English  versions  for 
the  first  eleven  stories,  cannot  be  considered  their  source, 
since  it  also  contains  the  stories  filia  and  noverca. 

Nor  to  the  Versio  Italica  does  there  attach  any  more  proba- 
bility, its  distinguishing  feature — the  reversal  of  the  order 
of  stories — finding  no  parallel  even  in  French. 

There  remains  group  A*,  or  the  family  represented  by  the 
second  text  of  the  Leroux  de  Lincy  edition.  A  presumption 
in  favor  of  some  member  of  this  family  is  at  once  established 


90  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

in  the  fact  that  it  has  the  same  order  of  stories  as  the  M.  E. 
group.  This  circumstance  has  led  Paris  and  others  to  see  in 
this  group  the  source  of  the  M.  E.  texts,  but  no  explicit  claim 
has  been  made  as  to  which  one  of  the  J.*-manuscripts  served 
as  this  original,  though  Petras  has  made  a  detailed  investiga- 
tion with  a  view  to  arriving  at  some  definite  conclusion.1 

The  results  which  Petras  reaches,2  however,  are  wholly 
negative.  He  shows  in  the  first  place  that  MS.  6849  [new 
No.  189]  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  which  Ellis  had 
suggested  as  the  probable  source  of  the  M.  E.  versions,  is  not 
even  a  possible  source,  but  belongs  to  group  L.  He  next 
endeavors  to  show  that  the  Leroux  de  Lincy  text  of  A*  (the 
only  one  of  the  O.  F.  manuscripts  of  this  type  yet  published) 
is  not  as  close  to  the  M.  E.  versions  as  are  some  of  the 
unpublished  manuscripts  belonging  to  this  family.  Among 
the  latter,  he  finds  the  MS.  4096,  Laval.  13,  to  be  nearest 
to  the  M.  E.  versions ;  thus,  by  way  of  illustration,  where  L, 
A*-  call  the  seventh  sage  Herons,  this  manuscript  names  him 
Meceneus,  which  approximates  the  M.  E.  Maxendus  much 
more  closely.  Despite  this  fact,  however,  he  is  not  willing  to 
concede  that  this  text  was  the  source  of  the  M.  E.  group,  but 
maintains  that  the  latter  had  its  basis  in  a  lost  manuscript 
which  is  connected  with  the  former  through  a  common  lost 
source. 

And  in  this  conclusion  Petras  is  probably  correct, — and 
assuredly  so  as  regards  the  Leroux  de  Lincy  text,  as  is  estab- 
lished by  certain  features,  which  are  not  in  J.*,  but  which  the 
M.  E.  texts  have  in  common  with  JTand  other  O.  F.  versions. 
A  few  of  these  are  the  following :  (1)  in  tentamina,  A,  (7  read 
gray  bitch  =  K  2604,  blanche  leuriere;  L  (A*  45),  only  une 
leuri&re ;  (2)  in  Virgilius,  L  (A*  51)  has  lost  the  feature  of 
Vergil's  casting  images  also  for  the  east  and  west  gates  of 
Rome,  which  has  been  preserved  in  K  3960  f.  and  the  M.  E. 
group ;  (3)  in  vaticinium,  the  child,  when  discovered  alone  on 
the  island,  has  had  nothing  to  eat  for  four  days  in  E,  B,  Cy 

Petras,  p.  37  f.  *  Ibid.,  p.  44. 


THE   SEVEN   SAGES.  91 

and  JT4725;  A*  99  and  D*,  only  three  days.  These  suffice 
to  indicate  the  result  which  would  follow  from  a  detailed 
comparison. 

In  view  of  this  conclusion,  the  problem  of  the  source  of  the 
M.  E.  parent  text  must,  so  far  as  a  specific  source  is  con- 
cerned, remain  for  the  present  unsolved.  Examination  of  all 
^4*-nianuscripts  will  doubtless  bring  us  nearer  to  the  truth, 
and,  it  is  hoped,  settle  the  question. 

II  (6.)  Sixteenth  Century  and  Chap-book  Versions. 

Under  this  head  fall  the  Wynkyn  de  Worde  version  and 
the  many  chap-books  founded  on  it,  the  lost  Copland  text,  and 
the  Holland  metrical  version, — all  which  fall  together  into  one 
distinct  group  apart  from  the  M.  E.  group. 

1.  The  Wynkyn  de  Worde  text  is  in  prose.  Its  date  is  not 
definitely  known ;  in  the  British  Museum  catalogue  it  is 
entered  as  1520,  though  Hazlitt  (Handbook,  p.  660)  gives  it 
a  dating  fifteen  years  earlier.  Only  one  copy  of  the  original 
text  has  been  preserved,  and  that  is  imperfect.  A  reprint 
made  by  Gomme  for  the  Villon  Society  (1885)  makes  the  text 
accessible.1 

This  version  seems  to  have  been  the  first  prose  version  made 
in  English,  and,  as  already  noted,  it  can  in  no  way  be  related 
with  the  M.  E.  metrical  versions  which  antedate  it.  In  length 
alone  the  contrast  is  sufficiently  striking  to  justify  a  serious 
doubt  as  to  any  immediate  relationship  between  them,  the 
prose  version  comprising  180  pages  in  Gomrne's  edition.  It 
is  based  on  some  member  of  the  Historia  family — probably  a 
Latin  2  rather  than  an  O.  F.  text.  As  a  translation  of  H  it 

lThe  History  of  the  S.  W.  M.  of  Rome,  London,  1885.  A  few  pages  missing 
from  the  Wynkyn  de  Worde  text  are  supplied  from  a  chap-book  version 
printed  in  1671. 

'2  Graesse  enumerates  a  half-dozen  or  more  prints  between  1483  and  1495, 
any  one  of  which  may  have  served  as  the  basis  of  this  version. 


92  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

is  comparatively  close,  though  it  abridges  at  times,  and  also 
makes  occasional  independent  additions.1 

2.  The  Wynkyn  de  Worde  edition  served  as  the  basis  of  a 
second  prose  edition,  attributed  to  the  printer  Copland,  which 
has  been  lost.    The  superscription  to  this  edition,  which  alone 
has  been  preserved,  agrees  almost  word  for  word  with  that 
of  the  Wynkyn   de  Worde   edition,  and   it   is   more   than 
probable,  as  Buchner  suggests,2  that  it  is  only  a  reprint  of  it. 
The  date  of  the  Copland  text  is  variously  placed  between  1548 
and  1561. 

3.  The  Holland  version  is  a  very  long  poem  written  in 
heroic  couplets,  and  in  the  Scottish  dialect.    The  original  edi- 
tion bears  the  date  1'578,  but  Laing  has  shown  it  to  be  probable 
that  its  composition  dates  from  the  year  1560.     It  seems  to 
have  been  very  popular  in  its  day,  undergoing  at  least  five 
editions  (1590,  1592,  1599,  1606,  1620)  in  little  more  than 
half  a  century  after  its  first  publication.     A  modern  reprint 
was  edited  by  Laing  for  the  Bannatyne  Club  in  1837. 

Sundry  conjectures  as  to  the  source  which  Holland  employed 
have  been  made.  Laing  maintained  that  he  used  either  the 
Copland  print,  or  some  O.  F.  or  Latin  text  of  H.  Petras, 
who  did  not  know  of  the  Wynkyn  de  Worde  version,  and  who 
makes  the  Holland  version  his  "  Redaction  C,"  investigated 
the  question  at  some  length,3  and  concluded  in  favor  of  the 
O.  F.  translation  of  H  as  Holland's  original.4  But  that 
neither  of  these  views  is  correct,  and  that  the  Holland  text 
was  the  rather  based  on  the  Wynkyn  de  Worde  version,  has 
been  conclusively  proved  by  Buchner  in  his  dissertation  in  the 
Erlanger  Beiirage,  v,  p.  93  f.  This  he  established  by  show- 
ing that  where  there  are  differences  between  the  three  versions — 
H  (either  Latin  or  French),  the  Wynkyn  de  Worde,  and  the 
Holland — the  last  two  are  in  almost  every  instance  in  accord 

1  See  Buchner,  Erlang.  JBeitr.,  v,  p.  95. 

*Erlang.  Beitr.,  v,  p.  96.  '  See  his  dissertation,  p.  47  f. 

4  The  second  text  of  Paris' s  Deux  Redactions.     Its  date  is  1492. 


THE  SEVEN   SAGES.  93 

with  each  other.  A  large  number  of  textual  parallels  be- 
tween the  two  English  versions  are  cited  in  further  support 
of  this. 

(4)  The  English  chap-book  versions  merit  but  little  atten- 
tion. They  have  been  numerous,  but  of  poor  quality,  the 
later  versions  especially  having  deteriorated  from  the  original. 
In  some  of  these,  new  stories  have  been  introduced,  and  in 
almost  all  of  them  the  old  stories  have  been  abridged — in 
some  of  them,  so  as  to  be  scarcely  more  than  epitomes  of  their 
prototypes.  That  they  were  very  popular  for  a  long  time, 
however,  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  the  British  Museum 
alone  contains  at  least  twelve  various  prints,  one  of  which 
purports  to  have  reached  its  twenty-fifth  edition.  Another 
was  published  at  Boston  in  1794, — the  most  recent  at  War- 
rington  in  1815. 

All  versions  of  the  chap-book  group  contain  the  distinctive 
features  of  H.  They  doubtless  go  back  to  the  Wynkyn  de 
Worde,  or  to  the  Copland,  text. 

In  addition  to  the  four  versions  or  groups  already  described, 
there  is  evidence  that  there  once  existed  another  sixteenth  cen- 
tury version,  which,  like  the  Copland  text,  has  not  survived. 
This  is  a  dramatic  version,  bearing  the  title  The  Seven  Wise 
Masters  of  Rome,  which  is  mentioned  in  Henslowe's  Diary 1  as 
having  been  made  by  Dekker,  Chettle,  Haughton,  and  Day, 
and  as  having  been  acted  at  London  in  March,  1599-1600. 
No  later  notice  of  its  presentation  has  been  pointed  out,  how- 
ever, and  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  work  was  lost 
without  undergoing  publication.2 

1  Ed.  Collier,  London,  1845,  pp.  165,  167.  See  also  the  Dramatic  Works 
of  Dekker,  ed.  Shepherd,  London,  1873,  I,  p.  xn. 

1  The  enumeration  of  the  late  English  versions  should  also  include  refer- 
ence at  least  to  the  Seven  Wise  Mistresses  of  Rome,  a  chap-book  modelled 
after  the  chap-book  version  of  the  Seven  Wise  Masters  of  Rome,  and  a  sort  of 
counterpart  to  it.  The  English  libraries  contain  several  versions  of  this 
type,  but,  though  very  interesting,  they  possess  little  value, 


94  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 


APPENDIX. 

[Containing  the  story  medicus  according  to  Ar  (1-228),  with  a  tabulation 
of  the  corresponding  lines  in  At  E,  By  Cy  F.~\ 

Hys  comaundement  )>ei  dide  be-lyve.  152a. 

jjaue  wex  ]?ei?  mochel  stry  ve 

Be-tuen  kynge  and  baron, 

ffor  J?e  Emperowr  wold  scle  his  son, 
5     J?e  Empero^r  hym  nold  save. 

He  lete  a-none  to  spoile  ]>at  knaue, 

And  witA  scourges  hys  body  swynge ; 

To  foul  dethe  thei  wold  hym  brynge. 

A-none  after  that,  god  it  wote,1 
10     He  bade  hem  to  hange  hym  fote  hote. 

With  scourges  J>ei  dide  hym  swynge, 

To  foull  de]?e  J>ei  wold  hym  brynge. 

He  was  lade  forj?e  with-oute  pite 

]>orouj-oute  all  ]?at  fai?  cite ; 
15     J>ei?  be-gan  a  rewfull  cry 

Of  many  gentyll  lady. 

All  J?e  folke  oute  of  Rome 

A-jeyne  J>at  gentyll  child  come. 

Waleway,  ]?ei  saide,  with  wronge 
20     Schall  ]>is  child  nowe  be  honge. 

Ryjt  a-mydward  J^at  ilke  pres 

Come  rydynge  Maxilles, 

And  he  sawe  J>at  rewfull  cas ; 

Hys  second  master  forsoj>e  he  was 
25     Hys  scole?  to  helpe  and  to  rede 

All  )>e  folke  to  hym  pei  bede ; 

A-none  to  court  he  gan  ryde, 

And  wit/i  ]>e  Empe?'owr  in  reson  chide 

ffonde  to  let  J;e  Emperoitr  wronge 
30     );at  his  son  be  noujt  an-hange. 

1  This  line  is  repeated  after  1.  12,  but  is  erased. 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  95 

SwyJ>e  fast  fro  }>e  folke  he  rode, — 

His  palfray  a-none  to  pe  paleys  glode : 

J>o  come  he  by-fo?  ]>e  Empmwr, 

And  grete  hym  fai?  with  honour. 
35     j>e  emperour  by  hym  styll  stode, 

And  by-helde  hym  with  steren  mode 

he  saide  to  hym,  "  master,  }>ou  haue 

J?e  cors  of  god  for  techyng  of  J>is  knaue. 

je  haue  by-nome  my  sone  his  spech ; 
40     ]>e  devyll  of  hell  I  J?e  be-tech, 

Thyn  felows  and  ]?ou  be  my  swye?  !  152b. 

je  schull  haue  lytyll  hye?." 

"  O  Syr  Emperow,  knyjt  of  prys, 

In  dedes  ]>ou  schold  be  wa?  and  wyse. 
45     It  is  no  wysdome  no  lyuys  hale 

To  by-leue  no  womans  tale. 

Mo?  to  harme  ]?ane  to  note 

A  womans  bolt  is  son  schote. 

ffor  jef  ]>ou  sclest  hym,  I  be-sech 
50     On  ]?i  heued  fall  J;at  ilke  wrech 

)?at  fell  on  Ypocras,  ]>e  good  clerk, 

)?at  sclewe  his  scole?  J^orouj  fals  werk." 

"  Master,  I  pray  f>e,  tell  j?at  cas 

Of  J?at  clerke  Ypocras." 
55     "  Sy?,  ]>is  tale  is  noujt  lyte  ; 

ffor  jef  );ou  wyllt  jef  J?y  son  respyt, 

A-for  to-morowe  day  lyjt, 

I  wyll  J;e  tell  a-none  ryjt, 

A-jenst  J?e  lawe,  with  grete  wowe, 
60     How  Ypocras  his  nefew  sclowe." 

"  I  jeue  hym  respyt,"  said  J>e  Emp^-our, 

And  saide  anone  with-oute  soiou?, 

Mon  schold  a-jeyne  feeche  his  son, 

And  put  hym  in-to  preson. 
65     J?e  chyld  was  broujt  oute  of  ]>e  ton 

With  well  grete  procession. 


96  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

po  he  cam  to  pat  hall, 

He  a-loutede  pe  barons  all ; 

And  in  to  prison  y-put  he  was. 
70     Now  tell  we  forpe  of  Ypocras. 

y?,"  saide  Maxillas,  "paramour, 

Ypocras  was  a  clerke  of  grete  honnour ; 

Of  lechcraft  was  none  his  pe? 

Neuer  jit  in  pis  londe  he?. 
75     He  hade  wit  A  hym  his  nefewe 

pat  he  schold  leren  of  his  vertue. 

He  savv  pat  child  comyng  of  lo?, 

pat  he  nold  tech  hym  no  mo? ; 

ffor  he  poujt,  and  saide  also, 
80     pat  he  in  lo?  wold  to-fo?  hym  go. 

pe  childe  perseuyd  full  well,  I-wis, 

And  hid  it  full  wele  in  hert  his. 

His  nefys  herte  he  gan  a-spye,  152c. 

When  he  coupe  all  pe  mastrye. 
85     Ypocras  gins  understonde, 

porouj  werkes  of  pe  childes  honde, 

pat  he  coupe  all  his  mastrye. 

He  ba?  to  hym  grete  envye. 

Sy  by- fell  apon  a  pynge, 
90     Of  hongre  pat  ilke  kynge, 

Hade  seke  a  son  gente ; 

To  Ypocras  a  rnessenge?  sente, 

pat  he  schold  come  his  son  to  hele, 

And  haue  he  schold  of  gold  full  a  male, 
95     Ipocras  wend  ne  myjt ; 

He  clepyd  his  nefewe  anone  ryjt, 

And  bade  hym  wende  to  pat  londe, 

To  nyme  pat  chylde  under  honde ; 

And  whane  he  hade  so      lo, 
100     He  schold  come  ajeyne  hym  to. 

pe  child  was  set  on  a  palfray, 

And  rode  hym  forpe  on  his  way. 


THE   SEVEN  SAGES.  97 

po  he  to  pe  kynge  came 

pe  kynge  hym  by  pe  honde  name, 
105     And  lade  hym  to  pe  seke  childe. 

Ihesus  cryst  to  us  be  mylde  ! 

pat  jonge  man  sawe  pe  childes  payne, 

He  tastes  his  arrnes  and  his  veyne; 

He  asked  an  urynall,  as  I  wene, 
110     And  schewed  pat  uryn  kenge  and  qwen, 

Of  pe  childe  all  god  it  wyt, 

And  saide  it  was  mys-by-get. 

He  gan  pe  qvvene  on  side  drawe, 

And  saide,  "  dame,  a-knawe, 
115     What  man  hape  by-gete  pis  childe?" 

"  Bel  amy,"  scho  sayde,  "  art  pou  wylde? 

Who  schold  bot  pe  kynge?" 

"  Dame,  say  pou  for  no  pynge, 

He  was  neue?  of  kyngges  streen." 
120     "  Lat,"  scho  saide,  "  soch  wordes  ben  ; — 

Or  I  schall  do  pe  bete  so, 

pat  pou  schalt  neuer  ryde  no?  go." 

"  Dame,"  he  saide,  "  witA  soch  tale, 

py  childe  schall  neue?  be  hale. 
125     Tell  me,  dame,  all  pat  cas, 

How  pe  childe  by-gete  was." 

"  Bel  amy,  saist  pou  so  ?  " 

"Sertes,  dame,"  he  saide,  "no."  152d. 

He  schoke  his  hede  upon  pe  qwene, 
130     And  saide,  upouj  pou  do  me  to-scleyne, 

May  I  noujt  do  py  childe  bote, 

Bot  je  me  tell  hede  and  rote, 

Of  what  man  he  was  be-geten." 

"  No  man,"  scho  saide,  "  may  it  weten  ; 
135     ifor  jef  n     counseill  we?  un-hele, 

I  schold  be  sclowe  with  ryjt  skyll." 

"  Dame,"  he  saide,  "  so  mot  I  the, 

No  man  schall  it  wyt  for  me." 


98  KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 

"  Syr/7  scho  saide,  "  it  so  by-fell, 
140     ]>ls  oj>er  day  in  Auerell, 

J>e  kynge  of  nauerne  come  to  ]>is  }>ede, 

On  fai?  hors  and  in  rich  wede, 

With  my  lord  for  to  play, 

And  so  he  dide  many  a  day. 
145     I  gan  hym  son  in  herte  to  lone, 

Ouer  all  J?ynge  so  god  aboue ; 

So  J>at  for  grete  drewrye, 

I  late  J;e  kynge  be  me  lye ; 

So  it  was  on  me  by-gete : 
150     Sy?,  late  no  man  ]>at  i-wete." 

"  Nay,  madame,  for  so}>e,  i-wys, 

Bot  for  )?at  childe  was  gete  a-mys, 

He  mot  both  drynke  and  ete 

Contrarious  drynke  and  contrarious  mete, 
155     ffresch  beef  and  drynke  ]>e  bro)?e." 

He  jaf  a-none  ]>Q  child  forso^e. 

J?e  childe  was  heled  fai?  and' \\e\e. 

)?e  kynge  hym  jaf  many  Jewell, 

A  wer  hors  i-charged  \\iih  s\\uer  and  gold, 
160     Als  moch  as  he  nyme  wold. 

He  dide  hym  forpe  a-none  ry^t, 

And  come  home  in  ]n\t  nyjt. 

|;e  master  hym  asked  jef  he  we?  sond 

"  ja  si?/'  he  saide,  "  be  seynt  Symond  ! " 
165     ]>o  asked  he,  "  what  was  his  rnedecyne?" 

He  saide,  u  fresch  beef  good  and  fyne  " 

"]?an  was  he  a  nauetroll." 

"]?ou  saist  sol?e,  be  my  poll  !" 

"  O,"  (\uod  Ypocras,  "  be  goddes  dome  ! 
170     )?ou  art  by -come  a  good  grome." 

)?o  by-gan  Ypocras  to  pencil 

To  scle  his  nd'cwc  with  some  wrench. 

];ei?-aftc?,  |>t-  ]'ridc  day.  153a. 

W/tA  his  nt- few  he  went  to  play, 


THE   SEVEN    SAGES.  99 

175     Yn-to  a  fai?  grene  gardvn  ; 

fei?  wcx  many  an  erbe  1'yii. 

fe  childe  sawc  an  erl>(>  on  fo  gffOUDde, 

fat  was  iny^ty  of  mochrl!  nionde ; 

He  toke  it  and  srhcwcd  to  Ypocras, 
180     Bot  he  saidc  a  better  fei?  was; 

For  he  wold  fat  child  be-cach. 

He  stoupyd  soch  on  to  rech. 

fo  fyle  Ypocras  with  a  knyf, 

He  nomc  his  ncfewe  of  his  lyf. 
185     He  dide  hym  bury  unkonnynglych, 

As  he  had  dyed  sodeynlych, 

And  afte?-warde,  swyf  e  jerne, 

He  dide  his  bokes  all  to-bryne. 

God  of  heuen,  ]>e  hyje  kynge, 
190     fat  is  oue?-sea?  of  all  fynge, 

Sende  Ypocras  for  his  treson, 

fe  foul  rankkeland  menyson. 

Ypocras  wyst  wele,  for  his  quede, 

fat  he  schold  son  be  dede ; 
195     Bot  for  no  Jwige  fat  he  coufe  fynch 

fe  meuyson  he  no  mygt  quench. 

A  nerapty  ton  he  dide  forfe  fett, 

And  full  of  olene  water  he  it  pyt, 

Also  full  to  f  e  mouf  e ; 
200     ffor  he  wold  it  we?  couf  e, 

And  dide  after  sende  rnochell  and  lyte, 

Nejbowrs  hyni  to  bysyte. 

He  saide  to-fore  hem  euerchon 

fat  f e  def  was  hym  apon, 
205     All  with  ryjt  and  noujt  with  wouje, 

ffor  his  nefewe  fat  he  sclowge. 

fat  treson  he  gan  hym  reherce. 

On  f  e  tone  a  C.  holes  he  gan  perce. 

When  f  e  holes  we?  mad  so  fell, 
210     He  dide  hem  stope  with  dosell, 


100  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

And  saide  to  hem  once  or  tweye, 

"  je  schall  see  of  my  mastrye." 

He  smered  J?e  dosells  all  a-boute, 

And  made  he  me  after- ward  drawen  oute. 
215     A  dro];e  J?ei?-of  oute  ne  came; 

)>a?-of  merveiled  many  man. 

Ypocras  saide,  "  water  y  can  stope, 

J>at  it  ne  may  une];es  drope;  153b. 

But  y  ne  may  stope  my  menyson. 
220     All  it  is  for  J?at  foul  treson, 

}>at  y  my  nefewe  sclewe  vylengly, 

ifor  he  was  wyse?  man  ];ane  y. 

I  no?  no  man  unde?  eon 

geue  me  helpe  ne  can, — 
225     Bot  my  nefewe  o-lyue  we?. 

Ryjt  it  is  J>at  y  mys-fai?. 

To  soifre  wo  it  is  skyll 

ffor  y  sclouj  my  lyuys  hele." 

TABLE  OF  CORRESPONDING  LINES/ 

AT  A  E  B  C  F 

949  933          1041          

950  934          1042 

951          1043 

—          952  1044          


5  953  (1045) 

954  (1046) 

955  (1047) 

956  (1048) 

(957)  (1436) 

10  (958)  (1438) 


JAn  identical  line  is  indicated  by  an  asterisk  (*),  an  omission  by  a  dash 

( ),  an  addition  by  brackets  ([]),  a  corresponding  but  not  similar  line 

by  leaders  ( ),  and  altered  rimes  by  parentheses  (). 


THE  SEVEN  SAGES.  101 

AT      A        E       B        G       F 
960          (1052) 

942    1054    


1057 

964  944    1058 

965  945 

966  946 

947    


20    968  948  

963  969  949  1059 

964  970  950  1060 

966    972  952  1062    1440 

965  971  951  1061    1441 
25           974  

973  

(967)  976  957*  (1065) 

(968)  975  958  

977  959 

30  978  960 

979  (961)  


969  981  963  1067    (1442) 

970  982  964  1068    (1443) 
35     (971)  983  965  (1069)   (1444) 

(972)  984  966  (1070)   (1445) 

(973)  985  967  1071    (1446) 

(974)  986  968  1072    (1447) 
[87-88]  [69-70]  [48-49] 

(975)  989*  971  "  1450 
40  990  972  1451* 

991  (973)  (1073)   (1452) 

(976)  992  (974)  (1074)   (1453) 

(977)  993  975  1454* 

(978)  994  976  1455* 
[79-88] 


102 


KILLIS   CAMPBELL. 


AT 

A 

E 

B 

C 

F 

45 

989 

995 

(977) 



1456 

990 

996 

(Okf7Q\ 

14^7 

v  «7  V/ 

QQ9 

C7  U  \J 

*     ' 

J.TCU  ( 

t/t/ft 

QQ1 

J7«7  ± 

/OQO^ 

Q7Q 

50 

(994) 



V  I  *J 

980 

(1085) 

1461 

995 



981 

(1086) 

1462 

996 

QS9 

(  \  o&7^ 

1  4fi*-i 

*7  t7  \J 

997 

997 

f/O  -> 

983 

(1088) 

1464 

998 

998 

984 

1465 

55 

999 

1001 

985 

(1466) 

v    / 

1000 

1002 

986 

(1091) 

(1467) 

1001 

1003 

(987) 

1468 

V     / 

1002 

1004 

/Q00\ 

1  4fiQ 

J.  \J  \J+J 

lOO'l 

J.  \J  \J  A 

100^ 

^       ' 

1470 

60 

-I  V/V/O 

1004* 

1  \J\JO 

1006 



(1093) 

J.TC  I  \J 

1471 

1005 

1007 

989 

(1094) 

1472* 

1006 

1008 

990 



1473 

1007* 

1009 

(991) 

1095 

1474 

1008 

1010 

(992) 

1096 

1475 

65 

1009 

_____ 

993 

1476 

1010 

994 

1477 

-i  \y  JL  vr 

1011 

c/  u  rt 

995 

1478 

1012 

996* 

1479 

1011 

1013 

997 



1480* 

70 

1019 

1014 

QQK 

1481 

i  \j 

j.  \j  i  & 

-I  \J  1  Tt 

1017 

£7  t/O 

999 

1101 

J-  TtO  i 

1482 



1018 

1000* 

1102 

1483 

1014* 

1019* 

1001* 

(1103) 

1484* 

1013 

1020 

1002 

(1104) 

1485 

75 

1015* 

(1021) 

1003* 

1105 

1486 

1016 

(1022) 

1004 

1106 

1487 

[1107-8] 

1017 

1023 

1005 

1109 

1488 

1018 

1024 

1006* 

1110 

1489* 

TIIK   SEVEN   SAGES.  103 


Ar      A        E  B  C  F 

(1019)  (1007)  (1111)  (1490) 

80    (1020)  (1008)  (1112)  (1491) 

1021  1025  1009  (1113)  1492 

102-2  1026  1010  (1114)  1493 

1023  1027  1011  1116  1494 

1024  1028  1012  1115  1495 
85     1025  1029  1013  1496 

1026  1030  1014*  1497 

1027  1031  1015*  1498* 

1028  1032  1016  1499 

1029  1033  1017  1117  1500 
90     1030  1034  1018  1118  1501 

1031  1035  1019  (1H9)  1502* 

1032  1036  1020  (1120)  1503 

1033  (1037)  1021*  1121  1504* 

1034  (1038)  1022  1122  1505 
95     1035  1039  (1023)  (1123)  1506 

1036  1040  (1024)  (1124)  .  1507 

1037*  1041  1025  1125  1508* 

1038  1042  1026  1126  1509 

1039*  1043*  1027*    1510* 

100     1040  1044  1028    1511 

1041*  1045  1029*  1129  1512* 

(1042)  1046  1030  1130  1513 

(1043)  1047  1031  (1131)  1514 
1044  1048*  1032  (1132)  1515* 

105     1045  1049*  1033*  1133  1516* 

1046  1050  1034  1134  1517 

1047  1051  (1035)  1135  1519 

1048  1052  (1036)  1136  1518 

1049  1053  1037  (1137)  1520 
110     1050  1054  1038  (1138)  1521 

1051  1055  1039    (1522) 

1052  1056  1040    (1523) 

[41-42] 


104  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

Ar      A        E  B  OF 

1053  1057  (1041)  (1143)  (1524) 

1054  1058  (1042)  (1144)  (1525) 
115     1055*  1059  1043  (1145)  (1526) 

1056  1060  1044  (1146)  (1527) 

1057  1061  1045  1147  1528 

1058  1062  1046  1148  1529 
1059*  1063  1047  1149  1530 

120     1060*  1064  1048  1150  1531 

1061*  1065  1049  1151  1532 

1062*  1066  1050  1152*  1533* 

1063  (1067)  1051  (1153) 

1064  (1068)  1052  (1154) 
125     1065  1069  1053*  1155 

1066*  1070*  1054*  1156 

1067  .  1071  1157 

1068  1072*  1158 

1069  1073*  1534 
130    .1070  1074  1535 

1071  1075  1055  1159  1536 

1072  1076  1056  1160  1537 
1073*  1077  1057*  (1161)  1538* 
1074  1078  1058  (1162)  1539 

[59-60] 

135     1075  (1079)  (1061)  (1163)  (1540) 

1076  (1080)  (1062)  (1164)  (1541) 

1077*  1081  1063  1165  (1542) 

1078  1082  1064  1166  (1543) 

1079  1083  1065  1167  1544 
140     1080  1084  1066  1168  1545 

1081  1085  1067  1169  (1546) 

1082  1086  1068  1170  (1547) 
1083*  1087  1069*  1171  1548* 
1084*  1088  1070  1172  1549 

145     1085  1089  1071  1173  1550 

1086  1090  1072  1174  1551 


THE   SEVEN   SAGES.  105 

Ar               A                   E                 B  C  F 

1087  1091  1073  1175  1552 

1088  1092  1074  1176  1553 

1089  1093  1075  1177  1554 
150     1090  1094*  1076  1178  1555 

[56-59] 

1091  1095  1077  (1179)  "  1560 

1092  1096  1078  (1180)  1561 
1093*  1097  1079*  1181  1562* 
1094  1098*  1080  1182  1563* 

155     1095  (1099)  1081  1183  1564 

1096  (1100)  1082  1184  1565 

[85-90] 

1097  1101  1083  1191  1566 

1098  1102  1084  1192  1567 

1099  1103  1085  1193  1568 
160     1100*  1104  1086  1194  1569 

1101  (1105)  (1087)  (1195)  1570 

1102  (1106)  (1088)  (1196)  1571 

1103  1107  1089  (1197)  (1572) 
1104*  1108*  1090  (1198)  (1573) 

165     1105  1109  1091  1199  1574 

1106  1110  1092  1200  1575 

1107  1111*  1093*  (1201)  (1576) 

1108  1112  1094  (1202)  (1577) 

1109  1113*  1095  1203  1578 
170     1110  1114  1096  1204  1579 

(1111)  (1115)  (1097)  (1205)  (1580) 

(1112)  (1116)  (1098)  (1206)  (1581) 

1113  1117  1099  1'207  1582 

1114  1118  1100*  1208  1583 
175     1115  1119*  1101  (1209)  1584* 

1116  1120  1102  (1210)  1585 

1117  1121  1103  (1211)  (1586) 

1118  1122  1104  (1212)  (1587) 

1119  1123  1105  1213  1588 


106  KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 

Ar      A        E  B  C  F 

180     1120  1124  1106  1214  1589 

1121  1125  1107  (1215)  (1590) 

1122  1126  1108  (1216)  (1591) 

[17-20]  [92-93] 

1123  1127  1109  (1221)  "  1594 

1124  1128  1110  (1222)  1595 
185     1125  1129  1111  1223  1596 

1126  1130  1112  1224  1597 

1127  (1131)  (1598) 

1128  (1132)  (1599) 

1129  1133  1113  1225  1600 
190     1130  1134  1114  1226  1601 

1131  1135*  1115*  1227  1602* 

1132  1136  1116  1228  1603 

1133  1137  1117  (1229) 
1134*  1138*  1118  (1230) 

195     1135  1139  1119  1231 

1136  1140*  1120  1232 
[cf.  1142]  [33-34] 

1143  (1141)  1121  "  1235  1604 

1144  (1142)  1122  1236  1605 

1145  1143  1123  1606 
200     1146  1144  1124  1607 

1137  1145  (1125)  (1237)  1608 

1138  1146  (1126)  (1238)  1609 

1139  1147*  1127  1239  1610 

1140  1148  1128  1240  1611 
205     1141  1149  (1129)  (1241)  (1612) 

1142*  1150  (1130)  (1242)  (1613) 
[cf.  1136] 

1147  1151  1131  1614 

1148  1152  1132  1615 

1149  1153  1133  1243  1616 
210     1150  1154  1134  1244  1617 

1155*  1135*  


THE   SEVEN    SAGES. 


107 


AT 


215 


220 


225 


A 

E 

1156 
1157 

B 
1136 
1137* 

C 
1245 

F 

1618* 

1151 

1152 

1158 

1138 

1246 

1619 

1153 

1159* 

1139 

1247 

1620 

1154 

1160 

1140* 

1248 

1621 

1155 
1156 
1157 

1161 
1162 
1163 

1141 
1142 
1143 

(1249) 
(1250) 
1251 

1622 
1623 
1624* 

1158 

1164 

1144 

1252 

1625 

[59-60] 
1161 

1165 

1145 

[53-54] 
1255 

1626 

1162* 

1166 

1146 

1256 

1627 

1163* 
1164 
1165* 

1167 
1168 
1169 

1147 
1148 
1149* 



1628 
1629 
1630 

1257 

1166 

1170 
(  \  1  79^ 

1150 

1258 

1631 

This  partial  table  will  serve  to  illustrate  the  correspondences 
between  the  various  members  of  group  Y.  The  array  of 
figures  may  look  repellent,  but  I  have  preferred  to  submit 
the  tabulation  for  an  entire  story  rather  than  to  give  only  a 
part  of  it,  or  to  resort  to  any  printer's  devices  to  compress  it, 
and  thereby  incur  the  risk  of  impairing  its  value. 

KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 


LIKE. 


I  was  born  June  11,  1872,  at  Enfield,  King  William  Co.,  Va. 
My  early  training  was  acquired  in  the  public  schools  of  my  native 
township.  In  the  fall  of  1888  I  entered  William  and  Mary  Col- 
lege, where  I  remained  for  two  sessions.  Securing  a  Peabody 
scholarship  at  the  University  of  Nashville  in  1890, 1  entered  that 
institution,  where  I  remained  for  two  years,  and  was  graduated  in 
1892  with  the  degree  B.  L.  In  the  fall  of  1893  I  returned  to 
William  and  Mary  College,  and  received  there  in  June,  1894,  the 
degree  B.  A.  In  October  of  the  same  year  I  entered  Johns  Hop- 
kins University,  where  I  have  studied  for  four  academic  years, 
pursuing  courses  under  Professors  Bright  and  Browne  in  English, 
Professor  Wood  and  Dr.  Learned  in  German,  and  Drs.  Menger, 
Marden,  and  Rambeau  in  French,  and  holding  during  the  session 
1897-98  a  fellowship  in  English. 

I  take  this  occasion  to  acknowledge  my  obligations  to  all  my 
instructors,  and  in  particular,  to  Professor  Bright,  to  whom  I  am 
deeply  indebted  both  for  guidance  and  encouragement  in  my 
academic  work  and  for  much  valuable  assistance  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  this  study.  I  wish  also  to  thank  the  authorities  in  the 
British  Museum,  Balliol  College,  and  Cambridge  University 
Libraries  (especially  Mr.  Bickley  of  the  British  Museum)  for 
courtesies  extended,  and  for  valuable  suggestions  and  informa- 
tion concerning  the  Middle  English  manuscripts  of  the  Seven  Sages. 


KILLIS  CAMPBELL. 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY, 
May  1,  1898. 


8 

RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 


RENEWALS  AND  RECHARGES  MAY  BE  MADE  4  DAYS  PRIOR  TO  DUE  DAI  i 
LOAN  PERIODS  ARE  1-MONTH.  3-MONTHS.  AND  1-YEAR. 
RENEWALS:  CALL  (415)  642-3405 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


mm  JUN  1 3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  1/83         BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


I  CN     f\ 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


90 


